London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) v Halcrow Gilbert Associates Ltd

Professional negligence requires the standard of the reasonably competent professional exercising the relevant skill. An engineer is not negligent for failing to guard against a risk which was not reasonably foreseeable on the evidence available at the design stage. Where a later event reveals a serious safety problem, however, the designer may be required to undertake a proper, limited review of the design and investigate the cause before operations resume.

Contractual defects regimes may constitute the parties’ exclusive remedies. Where the contract requires notice, an opportunity to remedy, notice of intended works and actual completion of those works, a claim for their cost does not arise until those conditions are met. Damages for reinstatement also require proof that the claimant genuinely intends, and reasonably ought, to undertake the work.

LFEPA claimed damages against an engineering consultant, Halcrow, and a mechanical-services contractor, Lorne Stewart, following fires at a specialist firefighter-training facility. The claims concerned defective ductwork, oil leakage, remedial works, investigation costs and alternative training costs.

The court considered whether Halcrow’s design and subsequent review of the facility fell below the professional standard, whether Lorne Stewart’s contractual defects-liability regime had been engaged, what remedial scheme was technically appropriate, and whether LFEPA intended, or reasonably ought, to reinstate the facility.

1. Halcrow’s professional duty. The applicable standard was that of the reasonably competent professional undertaking the relevant engineering work. Halcrow reasonably believed at the design stage that smoke oil would form only a thin film. On the evidence, it was not negligent in failing initially to anticipate flowing oil deposits, in using DW/142 as the basis of its bespoke specification, in failing expressly to require oil-resistant sealants, or in failing to carry out the earlier alleged reviews.
2. Review after the 2004 fire. Once the fire demonstrated that oil could leak into combustible insulation, Halcrow should have undertaken a thorough investigation of the cause and possible ignition sources and advised that real-fire training stop until the problem was understood. Its failure to carry out that limited review was negligent. The review would have identified the Westemp-panel and stratification problems, but would not have established entitlement to the extensive reinstatement claimed.
3. Lorne Stewart. Clauses 36 and 44 of the contract formed an exclusive defects regime. Clause 36.5 required written notice of the defect during the defects period, failure to remedy it within a reasonable time, notice of an intention to undertake the work, and actual completion of the remedial work. Those conditions had not all occurred. LFEPA therefore had no presently enforceable claim for the remedial cost against Lorne Stewart.
4. Damages. Reinstatement costs are recoverable only for a genuine loss where reinstatement is reasonable in the circumstances. LFEPA had not shown an authoritative decision to implement Scheme 3 or any other claimed scheme. Its own training evidence rejected hot-fire training in the fire rooms because of stratification, and substantial additional works concerning the Westemp panels would also have been required.
5. The claims for ductwork replacement and alternative fire training were rejected. The actual damage caused by the 2005 fire was minimal, and the court was not satisfied that LFEPA intended, or reasonably ought, to carry out the claimed reinstatement.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.