El Daouk, Mohamad; (2025) The future of Approved Inspectors: liable or not liable? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Management, Procurement and Law , 178 (1) pp. 25-31. 10.1680/jmapl.24.00008.

Preview

Text El Daouk.M. The future of Approved Inspectors liable or not liable. JMAPL. 10.1680jmapl.24.00008.pdf - Accepted Version Download (617kB) | Preview

Abstract

This paper examines the liability of Approved Inspectors to their contracting parties and third parties under the Defective Premises Act 1972. It contends that Approved Inspectors owe a duty of care to a broader range of claimants, especially when providing design input for dwellings. This perspective contrasts with the ruling in Herons Court v Heronslea (2019), which indicated that Approved Inspectors do not owe a duty of care under section 1(1) of the 1972 Act, a decision that may be misinterpreted as exempting them from liability. The paper distinguishes between two types of contracts for Approved Inspectors: Type-A contracts, which involve only statutory functions as per section 49(1)(b) of the Building Act 1984 and regulation 5 of the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010, and Type-B contracts, which include additional design and professional services. In both cases, the contract serves as a critical basis for claimants to establish a duty of care, potentially allowing for concurrent relief in tort and statute.

Download activity - last month

Export as JSONXMLCSV

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Archive Staff Only

View Item