Kirstie Goulder

+44 (0)1733 887682

View full profile →

A comforting case update for professionals in the construction industry

Construction / 05 August 2020

The recent Technology and Construction Court (TCC) decision of Rushbond Plc v The J S Design Partnership LLP [2020] provides some welcome comfort to professionals who regularly perform site visits in the course of their professional duties.

Background facts
The marketing agents of a disused cinema allowed a potential purchaser’s architect to inspect the property. On entering the property through a door, the architect turned off the alarm and shut the door behind him. Despite re-locking the door and re-activating the alarm on leaving the property, he had not locked the door when he performed the site visit. During that period, some vandals gained access to the property and later that day, started a fire that caused substantial damage.

The property owner, Rushbond Plc, issued a claim against the architect, The J S Design Partnership, alleging negligence. The claim was brought in tort, as the owner had no contract with the architect.

The TCC’s decision
The Judge struck out the claim determining some important issues relating to the relationship between the property owner and architect and “omissions”, namely that:
—  the architect owed the owner no common law duty of care;
—  the claim related to a “pure omission”, for which the common law does not generally impose liability for negligence – the architect’s failure to lock the door allowed vandals to access the building, but it did not provide the means by which they could start a fire and was not causative of the fire;
—  although he distinguished that liability for an omission could arise if there was an assumption of responsibility, i.e. if there was a contractual/quasi-contractual relationship (which there was not in this particular case); and
—  another exception to the rule could arise where one party held itself out as having a special skill or expertise on which the other relied in safeguarding the property (again, this was not the case here).

As ever, this outcome was case-specific but provides some comfort to professionals who regularly perform site visits in the course of their professional duties. Property owners may therefore wish to be cautious in allowing third parties unaccompanied access to their properties.



Sign up call to action button

This update is for general purposes and guidance only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. You should seek legal advice before relying on its content. This update relates to the prevailing circumstances at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments. If you have general queries about our updates, please email:

Get in touch with us

Interested in finding out more? Use this form to let us know how to contact you and what you’d like to know, and we’ll get back to you.

Alternatively, contact anyone listed on our website direct, they will be happy to hear from you.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.