Current Issues in Claims Against Construction Professionals

Adam Robb KC and Jess Connors

March 2024

A paper presented to the Society of Construction Law in Manchester on 1st February 2024

This paper identifies some key issues from 2023 construction cases, in particular in relation to limitation. In URS Corporation v BDW Trading Ltd, the Court of Appeal looked at when a cause of action accrues, grappling with Pirelli v Oscar Faber, and the question of whether a developer can be owed a duty under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. In Potter v Canada Square Operations Ltd, the Supreme Court provided an important judgment on the Limitation Act 1980 and in particular the meaning of the terms ‘deliberately concealed’ and ‘deliberate commission of a breach of duty’. Lendlease v Aecom dealt with how to determine whether strict liability duties are owed, and when a designer may be under an obligation to review its design and warn of any defects. Vinci v Eastwood summarised the approach of the courts in determining when a claimant will be held to have sufficient knowledge of attribution under the Limitation Act 1980. Pinewood Technologies Asia Pacific Ltd v Pinewood Technologies plc offered some direction on the construction and application of contractual limitation and exclusion clauses. Finally, the Court of Appeal’s judgments in Kajima v CAP and Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil CBC provided guidance on issues relating to alternative dispute resolution.

A. Introduction – B. URS Corporation v BDW Trading Ltd – C. Potter v Canada Square Operations Ltd – D. Lendlease v Aecom – E.  Vinci v Eastwood – F. Pinewood Technologies Asia Pacific Ltd v Pinewood Technologies plc – G. Kajima Construction Europe (UK) Ltd, Kajima Europe Ltd v Children’s Ark Partnership Ltd – H. Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil CBC

The authors: Adam Robb KC and Jess Connors are barristers practising from 39 Essex Chambers

Text: 44 pages