What happened
The plaintiff slipped on a tiled access ramp at a shopping centre on 9 March 2002 during light rain. The tiles did not meet the required slip resistance, and the trial judge held the owners, builder and architects liable. The architects had prepared a specification and delivered tile samples, but another firm administered the building contract and the builder had to obtain product data and compliance warranties.
The issues
The issue was whether supplying samples for approval amounted to representing that the tiles met technical requirements or assuming responsibility for checking them. The retainer could not itself extinguish a duty to an injured third party, but it helped identify the work the architects had undertaken, alongside the parties' conduct and knowledge.
The court's decision
The court treated the samples as submitted for approval of appearance, with no basis for finding that the architects assumed technical compliance responsibilities. It entered judgment for the architects on the plaintiff's claim and the owners' and builder's contribution claims. Damages and the rejection of contributory negligence were unchallenged; contribution between the owners and builder became 50% each.
Understanding the figures
The plaintiff's historical AUD 304,792 damages assessment was not challenged. The appeal removed the architects' liability and adjusted contribution between owners and builder to 50% each; it did not award the plaintiff an additional AUD 304,792. Later costs orders and actual collection are separate from that damages figure.
What this case shows
An unsafe facility does not give every professional involved in its construction the same inspection task. The court distinguished the specification, product documentation obligations, approval process and work actually undertaken. The limited retainer mattered as evidence of the architects' task, rather than operating as a general exemption from negligence liability.
Why another case may differ
No negligence in designing the ramp or drafting the technical specification was alleged. A broader supervisory engagement or an actual assumption of technical responsibility could lead to a different result. A later October 2009 decision varied who bore the architects' costs, indemnity provisions and interest, so the original costs orders are not the final account of costs liability.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →