Scott & Ors v E.A.R. Sheppard Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers Ltd

A professional is negligent where the advice given falls outside the range reasonably available to a competent member of that profession. In structural engineering, the absence of recent movement does not answer the significance of an existing and severe tilt. Where a building exceeds the applicable stability limit and is visibly in a dangerous condition, the engineer must address that condition and its consequences, including whether demolition is required. A limited visual inspection does not excuse failure to report an observable structural danger. The court may draw an adverse inference from an absent material witness only where the necessary evidential foundation exists and the absence is unexplained.

The claimants purchased a house after obtaining a limited visual inspection and report from E.A.R. Sheppard Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers Ltd. The report identified sloping floors and estimated remedial works at £25,000, but did not mention the severe tilt of the external walls or advise demolition.

After purchase, building works revealed the extent of the structural problems. Other engineers advised that the house should be demolished, and it was demolished and replaced. The claimants alleged professional negligence, reliance, causation and loss. The defendant denied negligence and alleged contributory negligence based on the claimants’ proposed loft conversion.

The claim succeeded. The defendant owed a duty of care to all three claimants, as conceded. The claimants relied on the report and would not have purchased the property had demolition been advised.

1. Standard of professional negligence. Applying Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582, the question was whether the advice fell outside the range of advice that could properly be given by a structural engineer exercising reasonable skill and care. The fact that demolition is an extreme remedy did not make advice against demolition negligent.
2. Structural condition. The walls had tilt materially more severe than the BRE “ultimate limit” of 1/50. The building could therefore be regarded as being in a dangerous condition. The absence of recent movement, and the fact that similar buildings had remained standing, did not answer the significance of the existing degree of tilt. The report’s failure to mention the walls or advise demolition fell outside the permissible professional range.
3. Alternative remediation. The possibility of investigating or designing alternative remedial schemes was distinct from the advice that should have been given at the time. The engineer was not required to propose such schemes before advising that demolition was required.
4. Adverse inference. Applying Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority [1998] PIQR 324, the court considered whether to draw an inference from the defendant’s failure to call an engineer who had inspected the property. Although the evidential conditions were present, no inference was drawn because the defendant had already called material evidence on the issue.
5. Contributory negligence and damages. The loft-conversion plan was not formulated when the defendant was instructed and was not finalised until after purchase. There was therefore no contributory negligence. Damages were £177,000 for overpayment, £23,347.18 for miscellaneous expenditure and £2,745 for storage, with interest to be agreed.

First instance decision. The claimants obtained judgment against the defendant for damages totalling £203,092.18, with interest to be agreed.