Murphy v Brentwood DC
Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; 1990 CILL 568-571(4)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 21 December 1989 Appeal by council (B) from ORC decision that it was liable for negligence by independent consultants (M). The plaintiff`s (MU) house had an inadequately design ed foundation and suffered from differential settlement . The foundation plans and calculations had been submitted by the engineers to B`s building control department and had been approved by them. For some time it had been department practice to refer to outside consultants M, all designs supported by calculations for checking by M. ORC held that M were at fault in approving the faulty calculations and that B was responsible for M`s negligence because under Public Health Act 1936 s64 a local authority has a duty of care to pass or reject the plans and B could not discharge that duty by delegation to M. On appeal by B, CA upheld the ORC decision. It rejected B`s contention that (MU) had not proved that the state of the house was an imminent danger to health and safety and with regard to damages , held that| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS42620 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 37900-1001 |
CA 21 December 1989 Appeal by council (B) from ORC decision that it was liable for negligence by independent consultants (M). The plaintiff`s (MU) house had an inadequately design ed foundation and suffered from differential settlement . The foundation plans and calculations had been submitted by the engineers to B`s building control department and had been approved by them. For some time it had been department practice to refer to outside consultants M, all designs supported by calculations for checking by M. ORC held that M were at fault in approving the faulty calculations and that B was responsible for M`s negligence because under Public Health Act 1936 s64 a local authority has a duty of care to pass or reject the plans and B could not discharge that duty by delegation to M. On appeal by B, CA upheld the ORC decision. It rejected B`s contention that (MU) had not proved that the state of the house was an imminent danger to health and safety and with regard to damages , held that