Dhamija & Anor v Sunningdale Joineries Ltd & Ors

A quantity surveyor’s contractual duty ordinarily concerns valuation, not the inspection or quality of construction work. Where the building contract requires valuation of work properly executed, the quantity surveyor may owe an implied term to exercise the reasonable skill and care of an ordinarily competent quantity surveyor when carrying out that valuation. That does not ordinarily imply a positive duty to inspect for obvious defects or to notify the architect of them. Whether the quantity surveyor breached the implied term remains fact-specific and depends on how the valuations were actually carried out.

The claimants sought damages for alleged defects in the design and construction of their house. They alleged that the third defendant, the quantity surveyor, owed a duty to value only work properly executed and not obviously defective. The third defendant applied to strike out that part of the claim. The court considered the contractual arrangements, the quantity surveyor’s role under the JCT contract, and the authorities concerning the division of responsibility between architects and quantity surveyors.

1. Application not finally determined. The pleaded defects claim was not struck out outright. A one-day preliminary issue hearing was ordered to determine what the quantity surveyor did in relation to the valuations, the methodology adopted, and whether that conduct breached the implied term.
2. The parties’ contract was evidenced by correspondence and subsequent conduct. Although there was no written express term, a term was implied to give the arrangement business efficacy. The quantity surveyor was required to act with the reasonable skill and care of quantity surveyors of ordinary competence and experience when valuing work properly executed for interim certificates.
3. The wider term pleaded by the claimants was rejected. It would impose an absolute obligation, add a positive duty to inspect for obviously defective work, and make the quantity surveyor responsible for quality as well as quantity. There was no sufficient contractual or legal basis for implying such a term.
4. Sutcliffe v Chippendale & Edmondson (1971) 18 BLR 149 established the ordinary division of responsibility: the architect is responsible for identifying and notifying defective work, while the quantity surveyor is principally concerned with quantities and valuation. The quantity surveyor’s conduct could not be criticised merely because defects were later alleged.
5. The claimants were given a limited opportunity to establish, on disclosure and evidence, that the quantity surveyor’s valuation work fell below the required professional standard. Disclosure and evidence were confined to that preliminary issue. The defective Scott Schedule and wider case management were also to be reconsidered.