MEM 770 : MANAGEMENT OF RISKS, CONTRACT & LEGAL ISSUE

ASSIGNMENT 3
CASE # 1
GROUP MEMBERS:

NURHUSNA BINTI MOHAMAD EHSAN 2022102271

NUR SUHAILA BINTI MOHAMAD NASIR 2022555989
NOOR AZWANA BINTI MOHAMED 2022530603
SURAYA NABILAH BINTI ZAINI 2022767933
CASE 1 SUMMARY
PLAINTIFF = CLIENT
Mammoth Undertaking Ltd. (“Mammoth”)

DEFENDANT = ARCHITECTURAL FIRM

Contract with the client to provide or arrange for inspection service during
construction of 20-storey building

DEFENDANT
Hired = STRUCTURAL
by architectural ENGINEERING
firm to ensure that FIRM
all structural aspects of the
construction of the project were carried out in accordance with the project
plans and specifications.

DEFENDANT = JIM NEOPHYTE

A recent graduate engineer appointed by the engineering firm as site
inspector.
 CASE 1 SUMMARY
SWIFT recommended to MAMMOTH that a substantial cost savings could be achieved if the specified fill
material around the foundation was changed to a more readily available material.

MAMMOTH sought the architect’s advice on the suitability of the proposed alternative fill material and
indicated that this decision must be made as soon as possible in order to complete on time.

The architect then referred the matter to the structural engineering firm through Jim Neophyte, requesting
the firm to approve the proposed changes as quickly as possible in the circumstances.

Jim Neophyte, under significant pressure from both MAMMOTH and SWIFT to approved the proposed fill
material without delaying the construction schedule, has approved the change of materials without due
consideration to the possible repercussions.

This caused the significant cracking in the foundation walls, necessitating remedial work resulting in
substantial additional expense being incurred by MAMMOTH. In addition, the completion of the project
was considerably delayed as a result.
 ELEMENT OF NEGLIGENCE
ARCHITECT STRUCTURAL JIM SWIFT
ENGINERING NEOPHYTE CONSTRUCTION
FIRM LTD.
DUTY OF CARE I I I I
BREACH OF DUTY
OF CARE
I I I I

PROXIMATE SIGNIFICANT CRACKING IN THE FOUNDATION WALLS BECAUSE OF THE

CAUSE CHANGE OF MATERIAL.

DAMAGES PLAINTIFF (MAMMOTH) REQUIRES REMEDIAL WORK WITH SUBSTANTIAL

ADDITIONAL EXPENSE AND DELAY IN COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.
 POTENTIAL LIABILITIES IN TORT LAW
Liability of the 1. The architect has a duty of care towards Mammoth to ensure that the construction is carried out
Architect: in accordance with the project plans and specifications with the proposal of material change.
2. By referring the matter of the proposed change in fill material to the structural engineering firm
through its representative Jim Neophyte, the architect may have fulfilled its duty of care.
3. However, the architect failed to exercise reasonable care in assessing the suitability of the
proposed alternative fill material, and that this failure caused the cracking in the foundation walls
and subsequent delays and additional expenses incurred by Mammoth.
4. The architect may be held liable in tort for professional negligence.

Liability of the 1. The structural engineering firm, through its representative Jim Neophyte, had the duty of care
Structural towards the architectural firm to conduct an appropriate investigation or study on the proposed
Engineering Firm: changes in fill material.
2. The structural engineering firm’s vice-president failed to provide appropriate advice and
direction to Jim Neophyte which result in 100% responsibility under Jim Neophyte’s decision on
the approval.
3. The structural engineering firm may be held liable in tort for professional negligence and
vicarious liability over Jim Neopyte’s action.
 POTENTIAL LIABILITIES IN TORT LAW

Liability of Jim 1. As the representative of the structural engineering firm on the construction site, Jim
Neophyte: Neophyte had a duty of care in studying the proposed changes in fill material.
2. Jim Neophyte failed to exercise reasonable care in approving the change of materials without
giving due consideration to the possible repercussions, and this resulted in the cracking of the
foundation walls and subsequent delays and additional expenses.
3. Jim Neophyte may be held personally liable in tort for professional negligence over strict
liability for non-abidance of the SOPs (CIDB Act 1994 (Act 520)).
TAMBAH FORESEE

Liability of Swift 1. Swift has a duty of care towards Mammoth to carry out the construction in accordance with
Construction the project plans and specifications.
Ltd.: 2. Swift breach the duty of care by recommending the change in fill material without proper
consultation with the architect and the structural engineering firm.
3. Swift Construction Ltd. may be held liable in tort for negligence.
 JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Based on the facts provided, it appears that there may be potential liabilities in
tort law for professional negligence against the architect, the structural
engineering firm, and Jim Neophyte, as well as potential liability for
negligence against Swift Construction Ltd. for recommending the change in
fill material without proper consultation.
2. Mammoth may be able to seek compensation for the damages incurred,
including the cost of remedial work and the delays in completing the project to
all defendants (contributory negligence).
3. The architectural firm also may be able to seek compensation for the damages
on reputation and loss of profit to the structural engineering firm for the
professional incompetency.
PREVIOUS RELATED CASE