Claims followed the flooding of a new built building. It was alleged that the gutters were designed without overflows, and so were defective. The judge found that it had been designed to a lower, and wrong capacity.
Held: The assessment of the appropriate design rate has to be made without regard to overflow capacity. It was argued that a defect was patent (i.e. not latent) if the dangerous propensity is apparent, even if the actual nature of the flaw is not. That argument failed. A latent defect means a concealed flaw, the actual defect in the workmanship or design, not the danger presented by the defect. There was no distinction in principle between drainage and overflow arrangements. The chain of causation between the architect’s error in regard to the provision of overflows and both floods was broken. The links in the chain cannot be re-connected to the second flood merely because there was another error which rendered the provision of overflows the more important.
Judges:
Lord Justice Brooke, Lady Justice Hale, And, Mr Justice David Steel
Citations:
[2002] BLR 100, [2002] EWCA Civ 9
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Construction, Negligence
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167474