Igloo Regeneration (General Partner) Ltd & Ors v Powell Williams Partnership

A professional is not negligent merely because an inspection fails to identify the true cause of a defect. The question is whether the advice fell below the standard expected of an ordinarily competent professional, assessed prospectively and without hindsight.

In appraising an existing historic structure, engineering judgment is required. Calculations are not mandatory merely because cracking is present, particularly where the defect is localised, the building has stood for many years, the suspected failure mechanism is rare, and other causes are more likely. Monitoring and provisional remedial measures may be reasonable where the cause remains uncertain.

The claim concerned alleged professional negligence arising from a pre-purchase building survey of historic mill buildings in Leeds. The claimants alleged that the defendant surveyors and engineers should have identified, or investigated further, compression failure in three cracked brick piers at Marshall Mills.

The defendant advised that the cracking was consistent with separation of the outer brickwork, recommended remedial ties and monitoring, and advised that immediate propping was unnecessary. The cracking later worsened and substantial remedial works were undertaken. The central issue was whether the defendant’s inspection, advice and reporting fell below the required standard of reasonable care and skill.

1. Judgment for the defendant. The claimants failed to establish any contractual or tortious breach of duty. The claims were dismissed.
2. The applicable standard was that of an ordinarily competent professional exercising the skill and care reasonably expected in the relevant field. The assessment had to be made on the information reasonably available in May 2003 and without hindsight. The court applied the principles stated in Saif Ali v Sidney Mitchell & Co [1989] AC 198 and Duchess of Argyll v Beuselinck [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 172.
3. The actual failure resulted from compression in the lower brickwork, initiated by concealed cill voids which concentrated the load. The defendant could not reasonably have been expected to know of those concealed voids. Compression failure in a building of this kind was rare, there was no material increase in loading, the building had stood for more than 170 years, and there were no internal signs or other features pointing clearly to compression.
4. Engineering appraisal does not require calculations whenever cracking or other damage is observed. Engineering judgment may properly conclude that calculations would be unhelpful where they depend on uncertain historic loads and material strengths. Calculations based on modern design allowances would have been theoretical and potentially misleading.
5. The defendant acted reasonably in treating frost damage and internal metal corrosion as more likely explanations, accepting remedial tying as a holding measure, recommending monitoring, and retaining a provisional sum for possible strengthening. Intrusive investigation was not required, particularly given the pre-purchase context, tenant disruption and time constraints.
6. The advice concerning floor loading was also reasonable. The defendant was entitled to assume that a loading assessment had been undertaken during the office conversion, while making clear that further investigation could be commissioned if commercially required. The claimants accepted the risk concerning modern office loading capacity.