Time Management: The NEC 4 ECC is based on a collaborative approach to project

management and encourages parties to work together to achieve the completion of

the project on time. The contract provides a detailed mechanism for managing time
using the programme, which is a critical tool for managing the progress of the work.
Clause 31.2 of the NEC 4 ECC requires the contractor to submit a programme
showing the planned sequence, timing, and coordination of the work to the project
manager. The project manager is required to review the programme and issue an
acceptance or a non-acceptance. In contrast, the JCT 2016 SBC places the
responsibility for the management of time on the contractor. Clause 2.8.1 of the JCT
2016 SBC states that "The Contractor shall regularly and diligently progress the
Works and comply with the obligations stated in the Contract Documents."

Completion: Both contracts provide for completion of the works by a set date, but
they differ in how completion is defined. Clause 36 of the NEC 4 ECC defines
completion as the point when the works are completed in accordance with the
Works Information, and the contractor has notified the project manager. The project
manager then verifies the completion and issues a Completion Certificate. In
contrast, the JCT 2016 SBC defines completion as the point when the works are
practically complete, and the contractor has given notice to the architect. The
architect then inspects the works and issues a Practical Completion Certificate.

Management of Defects: The NEC 4 ECC and JCT 2016 SBC have different provisions
for the management of defects pre- and post-handover. The NEC 4 ECC places a
strong emphasis on identifying and rectifying defects during the construction phase.
Clause 11.2 of the NEC 4 ECC requires the contractor to provide a defect correction
period after completion of the works. During this period, the contractor is
responsible for rectifying any defects that are identified. In contrast, the JCT 2016
SBC provides for a defects liability period, which starts on the date of Practical
Completion and lasts for a set period (usually 12 months). Clause 2.38 of the JCT
2016 SBC requires the contractor to rectify any defects that become apparent during
the defects liability period.

In conclusion, the NEC 4 ECC and JCT 2016 SBC differ in their approach to time
management, completion, and the management of defects pre- and post-handover.
The NEC 4 ECC places a greater emphasis on collaboration and the use of the
programme to manage time, defines completion differently, and requires the
contractor to provide a defect correction period. In contrast, the JCT 2016 SBC places
the responsibility for the management of time on the contractor, defines completion
as practical completion, and provides for a defects liability period.
The NEC 4 ECC (Engineering and Construction Contract) and JCT 2016 SBC (Standard
Building Contract) are both standard forms of construction contracts widely used in
the UK construction industry. Although they share some similarities, they differ in
their approach to time management.

Time Management:

The NEC 4 ECC is based on a collaborative approach to project management and

encourages parties to work together to achieve the completion of the project on
time. The contract provides a detailed mechanism for managing time through the
use of the programme, which is a critical tool for managing the progress of the work.
Clause 31.2 of the NEC 4 ECC requires the contractor to submit a programme
showing the planned sequence, timing, and coordination of the work to the project
manager. The project manager is required to review the programme and issue an
acceptance or a non-acceptance.

In contrast, the JCT 2016 SBC places the responsibility for the management of time
on the contractor. Clause 2.8.1 of the JCT 2016 SBC states that "The Contractor shall
regularly and diligently progress the Works and comply with the obligations stated in
the Contract Documents." The JCT 2016 SBC also requires the contractor to submit a
programme, but this is not a contractual requirement, and the architect is not
required to issue an acceptance or a non-acceptance.

The NEC 4 ECC also provides for a compensation event mechanism to deal with
changes to the programme due to unforeseen circumstances. Clause 60.1(1) of the
NEC 4 ECC defines a compensation event as "an event which is not the Contractor's
fault, and which stops the works or makes them materially more difficult or
expensive." The contractor is required to notify the project manager of any
compensation events as soon as they become aware of them. The project manager
then assesses the impact of the compensation event on the programme and adjusts
the programme accordingly. The JCT 2016 SBC does not have a similar compensation
event mechanism.

In conclusion, the NEC 4 ECC and JCT 2016 SBC differ in their approach to time
management. The NEC 4 ECC places a greater emphasis on collaboration and the use
of the programme to manage time, with a detailed mechanism for managing
changes to the programme through the compensation event mechanism. In contrast,
the JCT 2016 SBC places the responsibility for the management of time on the
contractor, with less emphasis on collaboration and no compensation event
mechanism.
The NEC 4 ECC (Engineering and Construction Contract) and JCT 2016 SBC (Standard
Building Contract) are both standard forms of construction contracts widely used in
the UK construction industry. Although they share some similarities, they differ in
their approach to time management in terms of possession, programme,
acceleration, and progress.

Possession: Clause 2.2 of the JCT 2016 SBC provides that the contractor shall
commence possession of the site on the date stated in the Contract Particulars. This
clause requires the contractor to take possession of the site by a certain date to start
construction work. The NEC 4 ECC does not have a specific clause on possession of
the site but requires the contractor to provide the Works Information (Clause 14.2)
and the programme (Clause 31.2) to the project manager, which outlines the
proposed start date for the works.

Programme: Both contracts require the contractor to submit a programme for the
works. However, the NEC 4 ECC places a greater emphasis on the programme as a
critical tool for managing the progress of the work. Clause 31.2 of the NEC 4 ECC
requires the contractor to submit a programme showing the planned sequence,
timing, and coordination of the work to the project manager. The project manager is
required to review the programme and issue an acceptance or non-acceptance. In
contrast, Clause 2.8.1 of the JCT 2016 SBC places the responsibility for the
management of time on the contractor, who must "regularly and diligently progress
the Works and comply with the obligations stated in the Contract Documents."

Acceleration: The NEC 4 ECC and JCT 2016 SBC also differ in their approach to
acceleration. The NEC 4 ECC allows for acceleration, but only with the agreement of
the project manager and payment of any additional costs incurred by the contractor
(Clause 36.3). The JCT 2016 SBC also allows for acceleration, but Clause 2.30 requires
the contractor to provide evidence of the need for acceleration and any additional
costs incurred. The employer is not obliged to accept the request for acceleration.

Progress: Both contracts have provisions for monitoring progress. The NEC 4 ECC
requires the contractor to submit regular progress reports to the project manager,
who is responsible for monitoring progress and can issue early warning notices if
there are any issues with progress (Clause 16). The JCT 2016 SBC requires the
contractor to provide regular progress reports to the architect or contract
administrator (Clause 2.15), who is responsible for monitoring progress and issuing
instructions to the contractor to maintain progress.

In conclusion, the NEC 4 ECC and JCT 2016 SBC differ in their approach to time
management in terms of possession, programme, acceleration, and progress. The JCT
2016 SBC places greater responsibility on the contractor for managing time, defines
the possession date for the site, and allows for acceleration with the agreement of
the employer. In contrast, the NEC 4 ECC places a greater emphasis on collaboration
and the use of the programme to manage time, allows for acceleration with the
agreement of the project manager, and requires regular progress reports to be
submitted.

References:

 NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract, available at:

https://www.neccontract.com/NEC4-Products/NEC4-Contracts/NEC4-
Engineering-and-Construction-Contract
 JCT 2016 Standard Building Contract, available at: https://www.jctltd.co.uk/sbc

In the NEC contract, the programme outlines the obligations of the contractor and
other parties regarding key dates, information, and access. requires the contractor to
submit a programme showing the planned sequence, timing, and coordination of the
work to the project manager. The project manager is required to review the
programme and issue an acceptance or non-acceptance.

The JCT and NEC contracts differ in their approach to the contractor's obligations to
carry out the work.

Under the JCT contract, the contractor is required to proceed "regularly and
diligently" with the work(clause2.1) and is free to organise their own sequence and
working method, provided it complies with the law and construction phase plan from
the CDM regulations(clause2.4).

In contrast, The NEC 4 ECC requires the contractor to submit regular progress reports
to the project manager (Clause 32). Project Manager has the authority to instruct the
contractor to stop or not start any work and subsequently to give instructions to re-
start or start the work or remove the work from the Scope(clause 34).

Overall, the JCT contract places more emphasis on the contractor's responsibility to
carry out the work in a regular and diligent manner, while the NEC contract gives the
Project Manager more authority to direct the work as necessary.

Clause 36.1 of the Engineering and Construction Contract allows the Contractor and
Project Manager to propose an acceleration to achieve completion before the
Completion Date. The Contractor must provide a quotation within three weeks of
receiving an instruction to do so, and the Project Manager must reply within three
weeks of receiving the quotation. A quotation for acceleration must include
proposed changes to Prices and a revised programme, and if accepted, the Project
Manager will change Prices, Completion Date, and Key Dates accordingly.

Comparison of NEC 4 ECC and JCT 2016 SBC Contracts in Terms of Completion

NEC 4 ECC Completion Provisions Clause 30 of the NEC 4 ECC contract deals with
completion. It specifies that completion occurs when the work is done and is in
accordance with the contract. It further states that the project manager is responsible
for determining whether completion has been achieved. The project manager has the
power to issue a completion certificate once they are satisfied that the work is
complete, and the employer agrees with the project manager's assessment.
According to clause 30.3 of the NEC 4 ECC contract, the completion certificate serves
as conclusive evidence that completion has been achieved.

JCT 2016 SBC Completion Provisions Clause 2.29 of the JCT 2016 SBC contract deals
with completion. It specifies that completion occurs when the contractor has finished
the work in accordance with the contract, including any defects that the employer
has agreed to accept. Once the contractor has notified the employer of completion,
the employer has 5 days to issue a written statement indicating whether they agree
that completion has been achieved. If the employer agrees that completion has been
achieved, the contractor has 14 days to rectify any defects. If the contractor rectifies
any defects, the employer must issue a final statement of completion. Clause 2.30 of
the JCT 2016 SBC contract specifies that the final statement of completion serves as
conclusive evidence that completion has been achieved.

Comparison The main difference between the NEC 4 ECC and JCT 2016 SBC contracts
in terms of completion is the role of the employer. In the NEC 4 ECC contract, the
project manager determines whether completion has been achieved, and the
employer must agree with the project manager's assessment. In the JCT 2016 SBC
contract, the employer has a more active role in determining whether completion has
been achieved. The employer has 5 days to indicate whether they agree that
completion has been achieved, and the contractor must rectify any defects before
the employer issues a final statement of completion.

Another difference between the two contracts is the process for determining
completion. In the NEC 4 ECC contract, the project manager has the power to issue a
completion certificate once they are satisfied that the work is complete, and the
employer agrees with the project manager's assessment. In the JCT 2016 SBC
contract, the employer issues a final statement of completion after the contractor has
rectified any defects.
Conclusion In conclusion, while both the NEC 4 ECC and JCT 2016 SBC contracts deal
with completion, they differ in terms of the role of the employer and the process for
determining completion. The NEC 4 ECC contract gives the project manager the
power to determine completion, while the JCT 2016 SBC contract gives the employer
a more active role in determining completion. The NEC 4 ECC contract allows for the
project manager to issue a completion certificate, while the JCT 2016 SBC contract
requires the employer to issue a final statement of completion after the contractor
has rectified any defects.

References:

 NEC Engineering and Construction Contract (NEC4): Engineering and

Construction Contract, London: Thomas Telford Limited, 2017.
 Joint Contracts Tribunal. (2016). Standard Building Contract with Quantities
(SBC/Q). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
The NEC 4 ECC and JCT 2016 SBC contracts have different approaches when it comes
to the management of defects pre- and post-handover.

NEC 4 ECC:

The NEC 4 ECC contract places a strong emphasis on proactive management of

defects. Clause 40.1 requires the contractor to correct any defects that are discovered
during the defects correction period, which starts at the end of the defects liability
period and lasts for a further six weeks. The contractor is also required to carry out
inspections and testing of the works, and to notify the project manager of any
defects that are discovered.

If the contractor fails to correct any defects during the defects correction period, the
project manager may arrange for the work to be done by others and recover the cost
from the contractor (Clause 44.1). Furthermore, Clause 44.2 allows the project
manager to reduce the amount due to the contractor by the cost of any defects that
have not been corrected by the end of the defects correction period.

JCT 2016 SBC:

In contrast, the JCT 2016 SBC contract places greater responsibility on the employer
for identifying and notifying the contractor of defects. Clause 2.38 requires the
employer to notify the contractor of any defects that are discovered within a
reasonable time. The contractor is then required to make good any defects that are
notified within a reasonable time, and at no additional cost to the employer (Clause
2.38).

The defects liability period in the JCT 2016 SBC contract is also longer than in the
NEC 4 ECC contract. It lasts for a period of 12 months after the date of practical
completion (Clause 2.43). During this period, the contractor is required to remedy
any defects that are notified by the employer, and to carry out any necessary
remedial work at no additional cost to the employer.

Comparison:

Overall, the NEC 4 ECC contract places more responsibility on the contractor for
managing defects, whereas the JCT 2016 SBC contract places more responsibility on
the employer. The NEC 4 ECC contract requires the contractor to carry out
inspections and testing, and to correct any defects discovered during the defects
correction period. The JCT 2016 SBC contract requires the employer to notify the
contractor of any defects discovered within a reasonable time, and places a longer
defects liability period on the contractor.

References:

 Institution of Civil Engineers (2017) NEC4 Engineering and Construction

Contract (ECC). London: Thomas Telford Ltd.
 Joint Contracts Tribunal (2016) Standard Building Contract With Quantities
(SBC/Q) 2016. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Pre-defects: The supervisor can instruct the contractor to search for a defect with
reasons given for the search. The contractor is also required to notify the supervisor
as soon as they become aware of a defect. The defect correction period begins at
completion for defects notified before completion and when the defect is notified for
other defects. The contractor is responsible for correcting defects, whether or not
they have been notified. The project manager may arrange for the client to allow the
contractor access to and use of a part of the works which has been taken over if it is
needed for correcting a defect.

Post-defects: The supervisor issues the Defects Certificate at the defects date if there
are no notified defects, or otherwise at the earlier of the end of the last defect
correction period and the date when all notified defects have been corrected. The
contractor and project manager may propose changing the scope so that a defect
does not have to be corrected. If a defect is not corrected within its defect correction
period, the project manager assesses the cost to the client of having the defect
corrected by other people, and the contractor pays this amount. If the contractor is
not given access in order to correct a notified defect before the defects date, the
project manager assesses the cost to the contractor of correcting the defect, and the
contractor pays this amount.
Pre-defects:
  Clause 43.2: Until the defects date, the Supervisor and the Contractor must
notify each other as soon as they become aware of a Defect.
 Clause 43.1: The Supervisor may instruct the Contractor to search for a Defect,
including uncovering, dismantling, re-covering, and re-erecting work,
providing facilities, materials and samples for tests and inspections done by
the Supervisor, and doing tests and inspections which the Scope does not
require.

Post-defects:

 Clause 44.1: The Contractor must correct a Defect whether or not the
Supervisor has notified it.
 Clause 44.2: The Contractor must correct a notified Defect before the end of
the defect correction period, which begins at Completion for Defects notified
before Completion and when the Defect is notified for other Defects.
 Clause 44.3: The Supervisor issues the Defects Certificate at the defects date if
there are no notified Defects, or otherwise at the earlier of the end of the last
defect correction period and the date when all notified Defects have been
corrected.
 Clause 45.1: The Contractor and the Project Manager may propose to the
other that the Scope should be changed so that a Defect does not have to be
corrected.
 Clause 46.1: If the Contractor is given access in order to correct a notified
Defect but the Defect is not corrected within its defect correction period, the
Project Manager assesses the cost to the Client of having the Defect corrected
by other people and the Contractor pays this amount. The Scope is treated as
having been changed to accept the Defect.
 Clause 46.2: If the Contractor is not given access in order to correct a notified
Defect before the defects date, the Project Manager assesses the cost to the
Contractor of correcting the Defect and the Contractor pays this amount. The
Scope is treated as having been changed to accept the Defect.
The NEC Engineering and Construction Contract deals with pre- and post-handover
defects in the following clauses:

Pre-handover defects:

 Clause 43.2 requires the supervisor and contractor to notify each other as
soon as they become aware of a defect until the defects date.
 Clause 43.1 allows the supervisor to instruct the contractor to search for a
defect before the defects date.
 Clause 44.1 states that the contractor must correct a defect whether or not it
has been notified by the supervisor.
  Clause 44.2 requires the contractor to correct a notified defect before the end
of the defect correction period, which begins at completion for notified
defects and when the defect is notified for other defects.

Post-handover defects:

 Clause 44.3 states that the supervisor issues the Defects Certificate at the
defects date if there are no notified defects, or otherwise at the end of the last
defect correction period or when all notified defects have been corrected.
 Clause 46.1 requires the contractor to pay the cost of having a notified defect
corrected by other people if they are given access to correct it but fail to do so
within the defect correction period.
 Clause 46.2 requires the contractor to pay the cost of correcting a notified
defect if they are not given access to do so before the defects date.

Overall, the NEC Contract places a strong emphasis on early notification of defects
and prompt correction, regardless of whether or not they have been formally
identified by the supervisor. It also provides for consequences if defects are not
corrected within the prescribed timeframes.
This clause pertains to both pre and post-handover defects. If any defects, shrinkages, or
faults appear in the Works or Section during the Rectification Period due to non-compliance
with the Contract or the Contractor's Designed Portion, the Architect/Contract Administrator
shall issue instructions to the Contractor to make good the defects. Within a reasonable time
after receipt of the schedule or instructions, the Contractor shall make good the defects at
no cost to the Employer unless instructed otherwise. If instructed otherwise, an appropriate
deduction may be made from the Contract Sum. The schedule of defects must be delivered
to the Contractor as an instruction no later than 14 days after the expiry of the Rectification
Period. No instructions can be issued after delivery of the schedule or more than 14 days
after the expiry of the Rectification Period.

In terms of pre-handover defects, both JCT and NEC require the contractor to correct
any defects in the Works. However, there are some differences in the clauses related
to pre-handover defects. JCT clause 2.38 pertains to both pre and post-handover
defects and requires the Architect/Contract Administrator to issue instructions to the
Contractor to make good the defects within a specified timeframe. On the other
hand, NEC clause 43.2 requires the supervisor and contractor to notify each other as
soon as they become aware of a defect until the defects date, and clause 43.1 allows
the supervisor to instruct the contractor to search for a defect before the defects
date.

Regarding post-handover defects, both JCT and NEC have similar requirements for
correcting defects in the Works. JCT clause 2.38 specifies that defects, shrinkages, or
other faults shall be specified by the Architect/Contract Administrator in a schedule
of defects, and the Contractor shall make good the defects within a reasonable time
after receipt of such schedule or instructions. NEC clause 44.1 requires the contractor
to correct a defect whether or not it has been notified by the supervisor, and clause
44.2 requires the contractor to correct a notified defect before the end of the defect
correction period.

a. As soon as the supervisor sees signs of settlement in the drainage run, he should
notify the contractor in writing (Clause 17.1). This will trigger the early warning
process, allowing the parties to work together to manage the issue and avoid it
becoming a larger problem. The supervisor should also arrange for further
investigation of the settlement to determine its extent and potential causes, as this
will inform the actions needed to address the issue.

b. The contractor can propose a compensation event to the project manager, under
Clause 60.1(2), stating that the excavations required to address the settlement would
prevent access to or use of the gas supply route, which was not foreseeable when the
activity was planned. The project manager would then assess the compensation
event, taking into account whether the gas supply was a Key Date and if the impact
on the programme and costs is assessed to be significant. If the compensation event
is accepted, the contractor may be entitled to additional time and/or money to
address the issue and mitigate its impact on the programme. The project manager
may also consider alternative solutions proposed by the contractor, such as delaying
the excavation until the gas supply has been installed or using alternative materials
to avoid excavation, as long as these do not compromise the quality of the works or
health and safety.

2.a. Searching for and notifying Defects 43 43.1 Until the defects date, the Supervisor may instruct
the Contractor to search for a Defect. The Supervisor gives reasons for the search with the
instruction. Searching may include • uncovering, dismantling, re-covering and re-erecting work, •
providing facilities, materials and samples for tests and inspections done by the Supervisor and •
doing tests and inspections which the Scope does not require. 43.2 Until the defects date the
Supervisor and the Contractor notifies the other as soon as they become aware of a Defect.

In an NEC Option B Contract, the clause that governs this scenario is clause 45.1, which deals
with defective work. The PM and Supervisor would need to give written notice to the
contractor, stating the details of the alleged defect and requesting that the contractor take
corrective action. The notice must also specify a reasonable time frame for the contractor to
respond and rectify the defect. In addition, the notice should provide any relevant
information or evidence that supports the claim of defective work.

a. As soon as the supervisor sees signs of settlement in the drainage run, he should
raise an early warning with the contractor. This is in line with Clause 16.2 of NEC
Option B, which states that the supervisor must give an early warning to the
contractor of any matter which could increase the total of the Prices, delay
completion or impair the performance of the works in use. The supervisor should
also instruct the contractor to investigate the cause of the settlement and propose a
remedial solution.

b. The contractor can suggest a compensation event under Clause 60.1(2) of NEC
Option B, which states that a compensation event occurs if the works are affected by
an instruction to change the works information which was not provided in
accordance with the contract. In this case, the contractor could argue that the need
to excavate the area to fix the drainage run settlement was not provided in the
original works information, and therefore constitutes a compensation event. The
contractor can submit a quotation for additional cost and time to the Project
Manager (PM) for consideration and agreement.

c. The supervisor can use Clause 44.1 of NEC Option B to ask the contractor to
provide further information about the problem. The clause states that the contractor
is responsible for finding out about and correcting any defects. Therefore, the
supervisor should instruct the contractor to carry out further investigations to
determine the cause of the settlement and submit a proposal for how to rectify the
issue. The supervisor should also provide the contractor with all relevant information
about the problem, such as the location and extent of the settlement, and any
observations or measurements taken by the supervisor.

d. If the supervisor had noticed the settlement after the defects date, the PM's course
of action would have been different. After the defects date, the contractor is
responsible for rectifying any defects, and the PM would have instructed the
contractor to rectify the settlement at the contractor's cost. The PM would also
assess whether the delay to the programme caused by the rectification works would
entitle the client to compensation for the delay damages.
e. If the fill is not defective, the contractor can continue with the works as planned,
and there would be no impact on the programme or the contract price.

f. In this scenario, the PM should assess whether the defective fill constitutes a
compensation event under Clause 60.1(2) of NEC Option B. If the PM agrees that it
does, the PM should instruct the contractor to submit a quotation for the additional
cost and time needed to rectify the problem. The PM should also assess the impact
of the delay on the programme and determine whether the client is entitled to delay
damages under Clause 63.1 of NEC Option B. If the delay is a compensation event,
the PM should notify the client and agree on a new Completion Date. The PM should
also consider whether any other parts of the programme are affected by the delay
and whether any additional compensation events arise as a result.

In addition, the PM should take disciplinary action against the contractor for failing
to notify the supervisor of the problem promptly. This is a breach of the NEC Option
B contract, and the PM can invoke Clause 11.2(25) to take action against the
contractor, such as reducing the Prices or terminating the contract.

g. In the JCT 2016 SBC contract, the contractor's lack of notification would have had a
significant impact on the outcome of the case. Under the JCT contract, the contractor
is required to give written notice of any defect as soon as it becomes apparent.
Failure to do so could constitute a breach of contract, and the client could claim
damages for any losses suffered as a result of the breach. Therefore, the contractor's
failure to notify the supervisor of the problem in a timely manner would have given
the client grounds for claiming damages for

f. In this scenario, the contractor has used defective imported fill due to an error in
the client's design team. This constitutes a compensation event under clause 60.1(2)
which states that a compensation event occurs if there is a change in the law or a
physical condition which the contractor could not foresee.

The contractor also admitted to being aware of the problem with the fill four weeks
before the supervisor noticed it, which could constitute a breach of contract under
clause 43.1.

The Project Manager should issue an early warning under clause 16.1 to the
contractor regarding the potential delay to the programme. The Project Manager
should also notify the client of the compensation event and instruct the contractor to
remove and replace the defective fill in accordance with clause 60.1(1).
The Project Manager should assess the impact of the compensation event on the
programme, including the delay to the gas installation, the 'heat on' date, and the
projected completion date, and determine whether any adjustment to the Prices or
the Completion Date is necessary under clause 63.1.

The Project Manager should also consider any potential claims for damages resulting
from the contractor's admission of being aware of the problem with the fill but not
taking any action.

Overall, the Project Manager should follow the procedures outlined in the NEC
Option B Contract to ensure that the compensation event is dealt with fairly and that
the project can continue to progress as planned.

In this scenario, the Project Manager should follow the procedure outlined in Clause
61.3 of the NEC Option B Contract, which deals with compensation events. The
defective fill and resulting settlement of the drainage run are compensation events as
they are events that cause delay and additional cost to the contractor.

The Project Manager should notify the client of the compensation event and request
that they assess the event within a week of receiving the notification, as per Clause
61.4. The client's assessment should include an analysis of the effect of the
compensation event on the prices and completion date, as well as any changes to
the Scope.

Since the defect in the fill is due to a problem in the client's design team, the
contractor should not be held responsible for the additional cost and delay caused
by the replacement of the fill. As per Clause 60.1(19), the contractor is not
responsible for the "design of any part of the works provided by the client" and the
defective fill was part of the client's design.

However, the contractor is partially responsible for the delay caused by their failure
to act on their suspicions about the defective fill, as they had a duty to notify the
supervisor as soon as possible. As per Clause 63.1, the Project Manager can adjust
the Completion Date and the Prices to take account of any delay caused by the
contractor's failure to notify the supervisor.

Therefore, the Project Manager should consider adjusting the Completion Date and
Prices to account for the delay caused by the defective fill and the contractor's failure
to notify the supervisor. The adjustment should be based on the client's assessment
of the compensation event, as per Clause 63.5.
g. 2.17 .1 If the Contractor or Architect/Contract Administrator becomes aware of a divergence
between the Statutory Requirements and a document referred to in clause 2.15, he shall
immediately give the other notice specifying the divergence and, where it is between the Statutory
Requirements and the Employer’s Requirements, the Contractor’s Proposals or other Contractor’s
Design Documents, the Contractor shall notify the Architect/Contract Administrator of his proposed
amendment for removing it.

2.15 If the Contractor becomes aware of any such error, omission or inadequacy as is referred to in
clause 2.14 or any other discrepancy or divergence in or between any of the following, namely: .1
the Contract Drawings; .2 the Specification/Work Schedules; .3 any instruction issued by the
Architect/Contract Administrator under these Conditions; .4 any drawings or documents issued by
the Architect/Contract Administrator under any of clauses 2.9 to 2.12; and .5 (where applicable) the
Contractor’s Proposals and other Contractor’s Design Documents, he shall immediately give notice
with appropriate details to the Architect/Contract Administrator, who shall issue instructions in that
regard

2.32 .1 Provided: .1 the Architect/Contract Administrator has issued a Non-Completion Certificate

for the Works or a Section; and .2 the Employer has notified the Contractor before the date of the
Final Certificate that he may require payment of, or may withhold or deduct, liquidated damages,
the Employer may, not later than 5 days before the final date for payment of the amount payable
under clause 4.26, give notice to the Contractor in the terms set out in clause 2.32.2. .2 A notice
from the Employer under clause 2.32.1 shall state that for the period between the Completion Date
and the date of practical completion of the Works or that Section: .1 he requires the Contractor to
pay liquidated damages at the rate stated in the Contract Particulars, or lesser rate stated in the
notice, in which event the Employer may recover the same as a debt; and/or .2 that he will withhold
or deduct liquidated damages at the rate stated in the Contract Particulars, or at such lesser stated
rate, from sums due to the Contractor.[
3. There are several potential claimants in this scenario: Phil and Don, Kirstie, and
Carol. Each of them may have a claim for damages based on the circumstances of
the incident. Here is a breakdown of each potential claimant’s claim:

1. Phil and Don

(1) Duty: As the driver, Phil had a duty of care to his passengers and other road users
to drive safely and within the speed limit.

(2) Breach: Phil breached his duty of care by driving 30 miles per hour over the speed
limit, which is considered reckless driving.

(3) Causation: Phil’s reckless driving was a direct cause of the accident, which resulted
in minor injuries to himself and his son.

(4) Remoteness: The injuries suffered by Phil and Don are not considered too remote
from Phil’s breach of duty.

(5) Defences: Phil may argue that he was in a hurry to get his son to school and that
he was not aware of the risks of his actions. However, this is unlikely to be a
successful defence as Phil should have been aware of the risks of reckless driving.

2. Kirstie

(1) Duty: As a driver, Kirstie had a duty of care to drive safely and wear a seatbelt. Dr.
Giles had a duty of care to provide Kirstie with appropriate medical treatment.

(2) Breach: Kirstie breached her duty of care by not wearing a seatbelt, and Dr. Giles
breached his duty of care by failing to check Kirstie’s medical records for allergies
before administering the morphine.

(3) Causation: Kirstie’s failure to wear a seatbelt did not cause the accident, but it did
contribute to her injuries. Dr. Giles’ failure to check Kirstie’s medical records for
allergies caused her to have an allergic reaction to the morphine, which resulted in a
longer recovery time.

(4) Remoteness: The injuries suffered by Kirstie are not considered too remote from
the breach of duty by Dr. Giles.
(5) Defences: Dr. Giles may argue that he was not aware of Kirstie’s allergy to
morphine, but this is unlikely to be a successful defence as he had a duty to check
her medical records before administering medication.

3. Carol

(1) Duty: Carol had a duty of care to ensure that Don arrived at school safely.

(2) Breach: Carol did not breach her duty of care as she did not have any direct
involvement in the incident.

(3) Causation: Carol’s actions did not cause the accident.

(4) Remoteness: The injuries suffered by Kirstie are too remote from Carol’s actions
to be considered a direct cause.

(5) Defences: None applicable.

In summary, Phil breached his duty of care by driving recklessly and causing an
accident. Kirstie suffered injuries due to Phil’s reckless driving and Dr. Giles’ failure to
check her medical records for allergies. Phil and Don suffered minor injuries due to
the accident, but they do not have a strong claim for damages. Carol did not breach
her duty of care, nor did her actions cause the accident or Kirstie’s injuries. Kirstie
may have a claim for loss of earnings due to her inability to work for twelve months.

Overall, this scenario highlights the importance of drivers adhering to speed limits,
wearing seatbelts, and medical professionals checking patients’ medical records
before administering medication. It is also important for individuals to ensure that
they fulfill their duty of care to prevent accidents and injuries.

In this scenario, there are several potential claimants: Kirstie against Phil, Phil against
Dr Giles, and Kirstie against Dr Giles.

1. Kirstie against Phil: a) Duty: Phil owed Kirstie a duty of care to drive safely and
within the speed limit, and not to cause harm to others on the road.
2. b) Breach: Phil breached his duty of care by driving 30 miles per hour over the
speed limit, which is a significant breach of the standard of care expected of a
driver. Additionally, he was distracted by his phone call, which may also be
seen as a breach of his duty of care.
c) Causation: Phil's breach of duty caused the accident and Kirstie's injuries, as she
was not at fault for the accident.
d) Remoteness: The harm caused to Kirstie was a foreseeable consequence of
Phil's breach of duty, as it was reasonably foreseeable that driving at a high speed
and being distracted by a phone call could result in an accident and serious
injuries.
e) Defences: Phil may try to argue that Kirstie's failure to wear a seatbelt was a
contributing factor to her injuries, which may reduce his liability.

3. Phil against Dr Giles:

4. a) Duty: Dr Giles owed a duty of care to Phil to provide appropriate medical
treatment and to not cause further harm.
b) Breach: Dr Giles breached his duty of care by failing to notice Kirstie's allergy
to morphine and administering the drug, which caused an allergic reaction and
prolonged her recovery time.
c) Causation: Dr Giles' breach of duty caused Kirstie's prolonged recovery time,
which in turn caused Phil to suffer a loss of earnings due to her inability to work.
d) Remoteness: The harm caused to Phil was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of Dr Giles' breach of duty, as it was foreseeable that administering
the wrong medication could cause harm and have consequences for Kirstie's
recovery time and ability to work.
e) Defences: Dr Giles may argue that he was not aware of Kirstie's allergy to
morphine, or that the allergy was not noted in her medical records, and therefore
he was not negligent in administering the drug.

5. Kirstie against
Dr Giles: a) Duty: Dr Giles owed Kirstie a duty of care to provide appropriate
medical treatment and to not cause further harm.
b) Breach: Dr Giles breached his duty of care by failing to notice Kirstie's
allergy to morphine and administering the drug, which caused an allergic
reaction and prolonged her recovery time.
c) Causation: Dr Giles' breach of duty caused Kirstie's prolonged recovery time
and loss of earnings due to her inability to work.
d) Remoteness: The harm caused to Kirstie was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of Dr Giles' breach of duty, as it was foreseeable that
administering the wrong medication could cause harm and have
consequences for her recovery time and ability to work.
e) Defences: Dr Giles may argue that he was not aware of Kirstie's allergy to
morphine, or that the allergy was not noted in her medical records, and
therefore he was not negligent in administering the drug.
In conclusion, Phil may be liable to Kirstie for the injuries caused by the car accident,
Dr Giles may be liable to both Phil and Kirstie for his medical negligence, and Kirstie
may have a claim against Dr Giles for her loss of earnings due to her prolonged
recovery time. The defences available to each party will depend on the specific facts
of the case and the evidence available.

In this scenario, there are four potential claimants: Phil, Don, Kirstie, and Carol. Each
of them has a potential claim for damages, and the following discussion will analyze
each claimant's case based on the elements of duty, breach, causation, remoteness,
and defenses available.

1. Phil's claim:

a) Duty: Phil owed a duty of care to other road users, including Kirstie, to drive safely
and within the speed limit.

b) Breach: Phil breached his duty of care by driving 30 miles per hour over the speed
limit, which is considered reckless and negligent behavior.

c) Causation: Phil's breach of duty caused the accident that resulted in Kirstie's
injuries.

d) Remoteness: The injuries suffered by Kirstie were a direct and foreseeable

consequence of Phil's breach of duty.

e) Defenses: Phil may argue that Kirstie's failure to wear a seatbelt contributed to her
injuries, but this argument is unlikely to be successful since the primary cause of her
injuries was Phil's speeding and negligent driving.

2. Don's claim:

a) Duty: Phil owed a duty of care to Don to ensure his safety during transportation to
school.

b) Breach: Phil breached his duty of care by forgetting Don's swimming bag, which
delayed their arrival at school and put Don at risk of being late or missing his
swimming lesson.

c) Causation: Phil's breach of duty caused Don to miss his swimming lesson, which
may have a detrimental effect on his physical and mental health.
d) Remoteness: The harm suffered by Don was a direct and foreseeable consequence
of Phil's breach of duty.

e) Defenses: Phil may argue that he had a reasonable excuse for forgetting Don's
swimming bag and that he took steps to rectify the situation by going back to get it.
However, this argument is unlikely to succeed since Phil's negligence in forgetting
the bag in the first place caused the delay and potential harm to Don.

3. Kirstie's claim:

a) Duty: Dr. Giles owed a duty of care to Kirstie to provide medical treatment in a
competent and safe manner.

b) Breach: Dr. Giles breached his duty of care by failing to notice Kirstie's allergy to
morphine, which he administered to treat her pain.

c) Causation: Dr. Giles' breach of duty caused Kirstie to suffer an allergic reaction to
the morphine, which resulted in a longer recovery time and loss of earnings.

d) Remoteness: The harm suffered by Kirstie was a direct and foreseeable

consequence of Dr. Giles' breach of duty.

e) Defenses: Dr. Giles may argue that Kirstie failed to disclose her allergy to
morphine, which contributed to the allergic reaction. However, this argument is
unlikely to succeed since Dr. Giles had a duty to check Kirstie's medical records for
such information before administering any medication.

4. Carol's claim:

a) Duty: The school owed a duty of care to ensure the safety and well-being of its
students, including Don.

b) Breach: The school breached its duty of care by failing to notify Carol when Don
did not arrive at school on time.

c) Causation: The school's breach of duty caused Carol to become worried about
Don's safety and well-being.

d) Remoteness: The harm suffered by Carol was a direct and foreseeable

consequence of the school's breach of duty.

e) Defenses: The school may argue that it is not responsible for Don's transportation
to school and that it cannot be held liable for any delays or incidents that occur
during transportation. However, this argument is unlikely to succeed since the school
has a duty of care to ensure the safety and well-being of its

Potential Claimant 1: Kirstie

1. Duty: The hospital and Dr Giles owed Kirstie a duty of care to provide her with
safe and appropriate medical treatment.
2. Breach: Dr Giles breached his duty of care by failing to notice Kirstie’s allergy
to morphine and administering the drug to her. This breach resulted in Kirstie
experiencing an allergic reaction, which further extended her recovery time.
3. Causation: Dr Giles' failure to notice Kirstie’s allergy to morphine directly
caused her to have an allergic reaction, which, in turn, prolonged her recovery
time.
 4. Remoteness: The extent of Kirstie’s injuries and the length of her recovery time
are not too remote from Dr Giles' breach of duty, as the allergic reaction was a
foreseeable consequence of administering morphine without checking for
allergies.
5. Defences: Dr Giles could argue that he was unaware of Kirstie’s allergy to
morphine, and that he took reasonable steps to ensure that the medication he
prescribed was safe. However, this defence may not be successful, as it is the
doctor’s responsibility to check for allergies before prescribing medication.

Example case law: In Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management

Committee [1969] 1 QB 428, the hospital was held liable for failing to diagnose and
treat a patient, even though the patient would have died regardless of the diagnosis
and treatment. This case highlights the principle of causation in medical negligence,
where a breach of duty must be the direct cause of the harm suffered by the patient.

Potential Claimant 2: Phil

1. Duty: Phil owed a duty of care to drive safely and within the speed limit, as
well as to ensure that Don arrived at school on time.
2. Breach: Phil breached his duty of care by driving 30 miles per hour over the
speed limit, which not only put himself and Don at risk but also endangered
other drivers on the road. Furthermore, by forgetting Don’s swimming bag
and going back to get it, he further delayed Don’s arrival at school.
3. Causation: Phil’s breach of duty, by driving recklessly and going back to get
Don’s swimming bag, directly caused the car accident with Kirstie.
4. Remoteness: The extent of Kirstie’s injuries and the impact on her ability to
work may be seen as too remote from Phil’s breach of duty, as it was not
foreseeable that his actions would result in such severe consequences.
5. Defences: Phil could argue that Kirstie was also at fault for not wearing a
seatbelt and that her condition made her more susceptible to injuries.
However, this defence may not be successful, as Phil’s breach of duty was a
direct cause of the accident, regardless of Kirstie’s own negligence.

Example case law: In Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691, the defendant was held
liable for causing an accident while learning to drive, despite being inexperienced
and not intentionally causing the accident. This case highlights the principle of duty
of care in negligence, where a driver owes a duty to other road users to drive safely,
regardless of their level of experience.

Potential Claimant 3: Don

1. Duty: Phil owed a duty of care to ensure Don’s safety and wellbeing during the
car journey.
 2. Breach: Phil breached his duty of care by driving recklessly and endangering
both himself and Don.
3. Causation: Phil’s breach of duty, by driving recklessly and risking their safety,
did not directly cause Don’s injuries.
4. Remoteness: The extent of Don’s injuries is too remote from Phil’s breach of
duty, as there was no direct causal link

1. Phil Duty: As a driver, Phil has a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill
while driving on the road.
2. Breach: Phil breached his duty by driving over the speed limit and using his
mobile phone while driving, which is illegal in most jurisdictions.
3. Causation: Phil's breach of duty caused the accident, which resulted in the
injuries sustained by Don and Kirstie.
4. Remoteness: The injuries sustained by Don and Kirstie were a direct result of
Phil's breach of duty and were reasonably foreseeable consequences of his
actions.
5. Defences: Phil may try to argue contributory negligence on the part of Kirstie,
as she was not wearing a seatbelt, or that her pre-existing medical condition
contributed to the severity of her injuries.

Example case law: Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850, where the court held that a driver's
duty of care is to exercise the standard of care of a reasonably competent and careful
driver.

2. Carol
Duty: Carol does not owe a duty of care in this situation, as she was not
present at the time of the accident.
Breach: N/A
Causation: N/A
Remoteness: N/A
Defences: N/A

Example case law: N/A

3. Don Duty: As a passenger, Don has a duty to take reasonable care for his own
safety while in the car.
4. Breach: N/A Causation:
5. Don's injuries were a direct result of the accident caused by Phil's breach of
duty.
6. Remoteness: Don's injuries were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of
Phil's actions.
 7. Defences: N/A

Example case law: Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367, where the court
held that a duty of care is owed to all passengers, including those with pre-existing
disabilities, and that the duty may be higher in such cases.

4. Kirstie Duty: Dr Giles owes a duty of care to Kirstie to provide medical

treatment that is of a reasonable standard.
5. Breach: Dr Giles breached his duty by failing to identify Kirstie's allergy to
morphine and administering it to her.
6. Causation: Dr Giles' breach of duty caused Kirstie's allergic reaction to the
morphine and prolonged her recovery time.
7. Remoteness: The prolonged recovery time and loss of earnings were a
reasonably foreseeable consequence of Dr Giles' breach of duty.
8. Defences: Dr Giles may argue that he did not have access to Kirstie's medical
records or that Kirstie failed to disclose her allergy to morphine.

Example case law: Bolam v Friern Hospital Mnagement Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582,
where the court held that a doctor's duty of care is to exercise reasonable care and
skill in accordance with the practice accepted by a reasonable body of medical
practitioners skilled in the relevant field.

5. Kirstie's Loss of Earnings

6. Duty: Phil owes a duty of care to Kirstie for her loss of earnings resulting from
the accident.
7. Breach: Phil breached his duty by causing the accident and injuring Kirstie,
which resulted in her loss of earnings.
8. Causation: Phil's breach of duty caused Kirstie's injuries and subsequent loss
of earnings.
9. Remoteness: The loss of earnings was a reasonably foreseeable consequence
of Phil's actions.
10. Defences: Phil may argue that Kirstie's pre-existing medical condition
contributed to her loss of earnings or that her failure to wear a seatbelt was a
contributing factor.

Example case law: Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837, where the court held that
a defendant is liable for all the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions,
including economic loss suffered by the claimant.
 1. Kirstie's potential claim:

(1) Duty: The duty owed by Phil towards Kirstie was to drive with reasonable care and
attention on the road.

(2) Breach: Phil breached his duty of care towards Kirstie by driving 30 miles per hour
over the speed limit and also by not seeing Kirstie coming around the corner.

(3) Causation: Phil's breach of duty caused the accident and Kirstie's injuries.

(4) Remoteness: The injuries suffered by Kirstie were foreseeable as a result of the
accident caused by Phil's breach of duty.

(5) Defences: Phil may argue that Kirstie was contributorily negligent by not wearing
a seatbelt, which could reduce his liability. However, since Kirstie's medical condition
makes her bones more susceptible to breaks, this may not be a successful defence.

Case law: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562; The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961]
AC 388.

2. Phil's potential claim:

(1) Duty: The duty owed by Kirstie towards Phil was to drive with reasonable care and
attention on the road.

(2) Breach: Kirstie breached her duty of care towards Phil by not wearing a seatbelt,
which contributed to the severity of her injuries.

(3) Causation: Kirstie's breach of duty contributed to the severity of her injuries.

(4) Remoteness: The injuries suffered by Phil were foreseeable as a result of Kirstie's
breach of duty.

(5) Defences: Kirstie may argue that Phil's own breach of duty in driving over the
speed limit and not seeing her coming around the corner was the main cause of the
accident and his injuries.

Case law: Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286.

3. Don's potential claim:

(1) Duty: The duty owed by Phil towards Don was to ensure his safety during the car
journey.
(2) Breach: Phil breached his duty of care towards Don by forgetting his swimming
bag and then driving over the speed limit, which increased the risk of an accident
and Don's injuries.

(3) Causation: Phil's breach of duty caused the delay in getting Don to school and the
increased risk of an accident, which led to Don's injuries.

(4) Remoteness: The injuries suffered by Don were foreseeable as a result of Phil's
breach of duty.

(5) Defences: Phil may argue that he was under pressure to get Don to school on
time and that his actions were reasonable under the circumstances. However, this
may not be a successful defence if his actions were not proportionate to the urgency
of the situation.

Case law: Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304.

Introduction Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds one party responsible for
the wrongful actions of another party. It is most commonly applied in
employer/employee relationships, but can also be applied in other contexts. In this
essay, we will define vicarious liability and discuss the elements that must be present
to establish it, including reference to appropriate case law.

Definition of Vicarious Liability Vicarious liability is a form of secondary liability where

a person or entity is held responsible for the actions of another, even though they
did not personally commit the wrongful act. It is a strict liability principle, meaning
that the defendant is held liable regardless of whether they were negligent or
intentionally committed the act. The aim of vicarious liability is to ensure that
innocent victims are compensated for harm caused by others, and to encourage
those in a position of power or control to act responsibly.

Elements of Vicarious Liability To establish vicarious liability, three elements must be

present:

1. Tortious act by another The first element is that a tortious act must have been
committed by another person or entity. This means that someone must have
committed a wrongful act that caused harm to another party.
2. Employment relationship The second element is that the person or entity
being sued must be the employer of the wrongdoer. This means that the
wrongdoer must be an employee or agent of the defendant, and not an
independent contractor or someone acting on their own behalf.
3. Course of employment The third element is that the tortious act must have
been committed in the course of employment. This means that the act must
have occurred while the employee was carrying out their job duties or acting
in furtherance of the employer's business.

Case law One landmark case that established the elements of vicarious liability is the
case of Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) 1 H&C 526. In this case, the
defendant bus company was held liable for the actions of its employee, who had
engaged in a race with another bus driver and caused an accident. The court found
that the employee's actions were in the course of employment, even though they
were contrary to company policy.

Another important case is Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC

11, where the Supreme Court held that the defendant supermarket was vicariously
liable for the actions of its employee, who had assaulted the claimant in the store car
park. The court found that the assault was sufficiently closely connected to the
employee's job duties to establish vicarious liability.

Conclusion In conclusion, vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds one party
responsible for the wrongful actions of another. To establish vicarious liability, the
claimant must demonstrate that a tortious act was committed by another person or
entity, that the defendant is the employer of the wrongdoer, and that the tortious act
was committed in the course of employment. Case law such as Limpus v London
General Omnibus Co and Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc illustrate the
application of these elements in practice

introduction Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds one party responsible for
the wrongful actions of another party. It is most commonly applied in
employer/employee relationships but

can also be applied in other contexts. In this essay, we will define vicarious liability
and discuss the elements that must be present to establish it, including reference to
appropriate case law.

Definition of Vicarious Liability Vicarious liability is a form of secondary liability where

a person or entity is held responsible for the actions of another, even though they
did not personally commit the wrongful act. It is a strict liability principle, meaning
that the defendant is held liable regardless of whether they were negligent or
intentionally committed the act. The aim of vicarious liability is to ensure that
innocent victims are compensated for harm caused by others, and to encourage
those in a position of power or control to act responsibly.

Elements of Vicarious Liability

1. Tortious act by another The first element is that a tortious act must have been
committed by another person or entity. This means that someone must have
committed a wrongful act that caused harm to another party.

Case law: An example of a tortious act committed by another party is the case of
Gravil v Carroll [2016] EWCA Civ 140, where the defendant's employee caused a car
accident while driving a company vehicle. The employee was found to have breached
his duty of care to other road users, and the defendant was held vicariously liable for
the employee's negligence.

2. Employment relationship The second element is that the person or entity being
sued must be the employer of the wrongdoer. This means that the wrongdoer
must be an employee or agent of the defendant, and not an independent
contractor or someone acting on their own behalf.

Case law: An example of an employment relationship is the case of Cassidy v Ministry

of Health [1951] 2 KB 343, where a nurse injured a patient during the course of her
employment. The court found that the nurse was an employee of the Ministry of
Health, and that the Ministry was vicariously liable for her actions.

3. Course of employment The third element is that the tortious act must have
been committed in the course of employment. This means that the act must
have occurred while the employee was carrying out their job duties or acting
in furtherance of the employer's business.

Case law: An example of a tortious act committed in the course of employment is the
case of Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509,
where an employee caused a car accident while on his way to pick up company
documents. The court found that the employee was acting in furtherance of his
employer's business, and that the employer was therefore vicariously liable for the
accident.

Conclusion In conclusion, vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds one party
responsible for the wrongful actions of another. To establish vicarious liability, the
claimant must demonstrate that a tortious act was committed by another person or
entity, that the defendant is the employer of the wrongdoer, and that the tortious act
was committed in the course of employment. Case law such as Gravil v Carroll,
Cassidy v Ministry of Health, and Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road
Transport Board illustrate the application of these elements in practice.

Introduction Professional structural designers owe a duty of care to their

clients to provide competent and professional services. When determining
if a professional structural designer has breached this duty of care, the
courts establish the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent
professional in that field. This essay will discuss how the courts establish
this standard, how they determine if an individual has fallen beneath it, and
reference appropriate case law to illustrate these points.

Establishing the Standard of Care

The standard of care expected of a professional structural designer is that

of a reasonably competent professional in that field. This means that the
designer must provide services that are of a quality that a reasonable
professional with the same level of experience and expertise would provide.
In establishing this standard, the courts take into account various factors,
including the designer's qualifications, experience, and the nature of the
project.
Case law: In Naylor v Preston [2017] EWHC 45 (QB), the court considered
the standard of care expected of a structural engineer in a claim for
professional negligence. The court noted that the designer was an
experienced engineer with relevant qualifications and experience in
designing similar structures. The court established the standard of care
expected of a reasonable professional in that field by taking into account
industry standards, codes of practice, and the designer's own professional
judgment.

Determining Breach of Duty

If it is established that the professional structural designer owed a duty of

care to the client and that there was a breach of that duty, the court will
then determine whether the individual has fallen beneath the standard of
care expected of them. This involves assessing whether the designer's
conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonably
competent professional in that field.

Case law: In Robinson v PE Jones (Contractors) Ltd [2011] EWHC 1347

(TCC), the court considered whether a structural engineer had breached
their duty of care to the claimant. The court held that the engineer had
breached their duty of care by failing to carry out adequate inspections of
the property, failing to advise the claimant of potential risks, and failing to
recommend appropriate remedial action. The court found that these
failures fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent
professional in that field.

Causation and Damages

If the court determines that the professional structural designer breached

their duty of care, the claimant must also establish that the breach caused
them to suffer harm or loss. The court will consider whether the harm or
loss suffered by the claimant was a direct result of the designer's breach of
duty.

Case law: In Mulholland v Hughes and Salvidge [1996] PNLR 74, the court
considered a claim for professional negligence against a structural engineer
who had failed to identify a defect in a building that subsequently
collapsed. The court held that the engineer had breached their duty of care,
and that this breach had caused the claimant to suffer harm in the form of
property damage and personal injury.

Conclusion

In conclusion, when determining if a professional structural designer has

breached their duty of care, the courts establish the standard of care
expected of a reasonably competent professional in that field. The courts
then determine whether the designer has fallen below that standard, by
assessing whether their conduct was consistent with the standard of care
expected of them. Finally, the claimant must establish that any harm or loss
suffered was a direct result of the designer's breach of duty. Cases such as
Naylor v Preston, Robinson v PE Jones (Contractors) Ltd, and Mulholland v
Hughes and Salvidge illustrate the application of these principles in
practice.
 1. Vicarious liability is a legal principle that holds one party responsible for the
wrongful actions of another party, even if the first party did not directly cause
the harm. In order for vicarious liability to be established, the claimant must
demonstrate that there is a relationship between the two parties that justifies
imposing liability on the first party for the actions of the second party. The
most common example of this relationship is employer-employee, where an
employer can be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees.

Vicarious liability is a legal concept that determines who is potentially liable

for the wrongs committed by another person. It is a form of secondary, strict
liability, most commonly exercised in employer-employee situations. The
justifications for vicarious liability include deep pockets argument, control and
supervision, competent staff selection, benefit/burden theory, and
maintenance of good practice standards. To establish vicarious liability, it must
be shown that a tort has been committed by an employee of the defendant in
the course of employment.

To establish vicarious liability, the claimant must prove that the wrongdoer was
acting in the course of their employment or in furtherance of their employer's
business. This was established in the landmark case of Salmond v A. Salmond & Co
Ltd [1906] AC 435, where it was held that for vicarious liability to arise, the wrongful
act must be closely connected with what the employee was employed to do.

There are, however, limits to vicarious liability. In the case of Various Claimants v
Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others [2012] UKSC 56, it was held that the
wrongful act must be sufficiently connected with the employment such that it would
be fair and just to impose liability on the employer. In this case, the Catholic Church
was held vicariously liable for the sexual abuse committed by its priests, as the abuse
was closely connected to their positions of authority within the Church.

(b) When determining whether a professional structural designer has breached its
duty of care, the court will first establish the standard of care that was expected of
the designer. This standard of care is generally measured by what a reasonably
competent professional in the same field would have done in similar circumstances.

In Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582, the court held
that the standard of care expected of a professional is that of a responsible body of
professional opinion. In other words, if the designer acted in accordance with a
practice that is accepted as proper by a responsible body of professionals in their
field, they may not be found to have breached their duty of care. However, if the
designer's actions were not in line with the practice of their peers, they may be found
to have breached their duty of care.

Once the standard of care has been established, the court will determine whether the
professional has fallen below that standard. This is usually done by examining the
facts of the case and determining whether the professional's actions were reasonable
in the circumstances. In the case of Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691, the court
held that a learner driver owed the same duty of care to other road users as an
experienced driver. In other words, even if the professional is inexperienced, they
must still act with the same level of care as a more experienced professional.

In determining whether the professional has breached their duty of care, the court
will also take into account any relevant industry standards or guidelines. If the
professional has failed to comply with these standards, this may be evidence that
they have breached their duty of care.

In conclusion, when determining whether a professional structural designer has

breached their duty of care, the court will establish the standard of care expected of
a reasonable and competent professional in the same field, and then determine
whether the designer has fallen below that standard. The court will take into account
any relevant industry standards or guidelines, as well as the specific facts of the case,
in making this determination.

Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds an employer or principal liable for the
wrongful actions of their employees or agents that occurred within the scope of their
employment or agency. In other words, the employer or principal is held responsible
for the actions of their employees or agents, even if they were not directly involved in
the wrongdoing.

To establish vicarious liability, the claimant must show that there is a relationship
between the wrongdoer and the employer or principal, and that the wrongful act was
committed within the course of the employment or agency relationship. The claimant
must also show that the wrongful act was committed in furtherance of the
employer's or principal's business, rather than for personal reasons.
One of the leading cases on vicarious liability is the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd
[2002] UKHL 22. In this case, the House of Lords held that an employer can be
vicariously liable for the sexual abuse of a resident by an employee who was in a
position of authority, even though the abuse was outside the scope of the
employee's employment contract. The court found that there was a close connection
between the abuse and the employee's duties, and that the employer had entrusted
the employee with a position of trust and authority.

Another important case on vicarious liability is the case of Cox v Ministry of Justice
[2016] UKSC 10. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Ministry of Justice was
vicariously liable for the wrongful act of a prisoner who was working in the prison
kitchen when he dropped a bag of rice on a catering instructor's foot, causing her
injury. The court found that there was a sufficiently close connection between the
prisoner's work and the wrongful act, and that the Ministry of Justice had created the
risk of the wrongful act by employing the prisoner in the kitchen.

Overall, vicarious liability is an important legal principle that allows injured parties to
hold employers or principals responsible for the actions of their employees or
agents. To establish vicarious liability, the claimant must demonstrate a close
relationship between the wrongdoer and the employer or principal, and that the
wrongful act occurred within the scope of the employment or agency relationship.

Professional structural designers owe a duty of care to their clients to exercise

reasonable skill and care in the design and construction of structures. If a designer
breaches this duty and causes harm to their client, the client may be able to bring a
claim for negligence against the designer.

In determining whether a professional structural designer has breached their duty of

care, the courts will typically look to establish the standard of care that was expected
of the designer in the circumstances. This involves considering what a reasonable
designer in the same position would have done.

To establish the standard of care, the courts will often look to expert evidence from
other professionals in the same field. In Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583, the court held that a doctor is not negligent if they
have acted in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion. This principle
has been applied in cases involving other professionals, including structural
designers, and is commonly known as the "Bolam test".

The Bolam test requires the court to consider whether the designer acted in
accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of designers
in the same field. If the designer's actions are consistent with this standard, they will
not be found to have breached their duty of care, even if their actions lead to harm.

However, if the designer's actions fall below the standard expected, the court will
find that they have breached their duty of care. The court will then consider whether
this breach of duty caused the harm suffered by the client, and whether the harm
suffered was foreseeable.

One example of a case involving a professional structural designer is Royal Brompton

Hospital NHS Trust v Frederick Alexander Hammond [2001] EWCA Civ 1011. In this
case, the designer was hired to design a new hospital building, but the design was
defective and had to be corrected at significant cost. The court found that the
designer had breached their duty of care by failing to design the building to the
required standard, and that this breach of duty had caused the hospital to suffer
financial losses. The court also found that the losses suffered were foreseeable, as a
reasonable designer would have foreseen that a defective design would result in
additional costs.

In summary, the courts will establish the standard of care expected of a professional
structural designer by looking to expert evidence and the practice accepted as
proper by a reasonable body of designers in the same field. If the designer's actions
fall below this standard, they will be found to have breached their duty of care. The
court will then consider whether this breach of duty caused the harm suffered by the
client, and whether the harm suffered was foreseeable.
2.a The Contractor may be asked by the Supervisor to search for defects and explain why. It might be
necessary for the Contractor to disassemble or test items. If a defect is discovered prior to the
deadline for defects, the Contractor and the Supervisor must immediately notify one another(clause
43). The supervisor must immediately notify the contractor to any indications of settlement in the
drainage run. This enables the contractor to look into the issue and address it before the job is
finished. The notification must be in writing and contain information on the location of the affected
area as well as any indications of settlement that have been noticed.

b. In this case, the contractor can suggest that this settlement issue be considered as a
compensation event under clause 60. This would allow the contractor to submit a quotation
under (clause 62.2) for proposed changes to the prices and any delay to the completion date,
taking into account the impact of the excavation on the gas supply installation. The
contractor must provide details of the assessment with each quotation, and if the program
for remaining work is altered by the compensation event, the alterations must be included in
the quotation.

c. The Project Manager can use Clause 14.3 to give an instruction to the Contractor to investigate the
settlement issue further. The PM and Supervisor must consider the contractor's proposal and then
issue an instruction to the Contractor to look into the problem. The PM should provide the
Contractor with clear information about the issue and what needs to be investigated.

The Project Manager can use clause 63.1 to assess the effect of a compensation event on the actual
and forecast Defined Cost of the work and resulting Fee. In this case, the Project Manager and
Supervisor want to investigate the settlement further, which may result in a compensation event. If
they decide to proceed with this, the Project Manager can use clause 14.3 to give an instruction to
the Contractor to investigate the settlement issue. The Project Manager needs to give the Contractor
details about the settlement problem, including its location, the observed signs of settlement, and
any other relevant information. Once the Contractor has investigated the issue, they can provide a
proposal for how to fix the problem and any associated costs and delays, which the Project Manager
can assess using clause 63.1.