Renwick & Anor v Simon and Michael Brooke Architects & Ors

For limitation purposes, knowledge under Limitation Act 1980, section 14A, does not require certainty or knowledge that the conduct was legally negligent. The claimant must know the essential facts about the damage, that it is capable of being attributed to the relevant act or omission, and the defendant’s identity. That knowledge is sufficient when it makes it reasonable to investigate or begin the preliminaries to a claim. A later negligent recommendation about remedial work may constitute a separate cause of action. Its limitation period runs from the damage caused by that recommendation, rather than necessarily from the original defective work.

The claimants sought substantial damages against their architect, structural engineer and waterproofing contractor concerning a leaking basement constructed during the extension of their home. The second defendant, the structural engineer, applied for summary judgment on the basis that the contractual and tortious claims were statute-barred.

The alleged breaches principally concerned design, specification and inspection of the original construction, but also included advice to use internal render as a remedial solution. The central issues were when time began to run and whether section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 extended the limitation period.

The application succeeded in substantial part. The pleaded claims concerning the original design, specification and inspection had no realistic prospect of avoiding the limitation defence. The allegation concerning negligent advice to use internal render remained sufficiently arguable and was not summarily determined.

1. Section 14A knowledge. The starting date is the earliest date on which the claimant had the knowledge required to bring a damages claim and the right to bring it. Knowledge does not mean certainty. Knowledge of sufficient essential facts to begin a claim, seek advice or collect evidence may suffice.
2. The claimant must know the material facts about the damage and the other facts relevant to the claim. These include facts which would lead a reasonable person to regard the damage as sufficiently serious to justify proceedings, that the damage was capable of being caused by the alleged act or omission, and the defendant’s identity. Knowledge that the conduct amounted to negligence as a matter of law is unnecessary.
3. The claimants knew by 2002 that the basement suffered serious flooding, that the workmanship was culpably poor, that the waterproofing solution had failed, and that the structural engineer had design and inspection responsibilities. They therefore had sufficient knowledge to investigate and bring claims concerning the original work. The limitation defence was bound to succeed against those claims.
4. An allegation that the structural engineer negligently advised the claimants to adopt internal render instead of replacing defective concrete could concern a distinct breach and distinct damage. If established, that damage would arise when the remedial solution failed, or when the claimants acquired the relevant section 14A knowledge. The issue was left for trial, subject to any properly supported amendment of the Particulars of Claim.