Image from Google Jackets

Contractor liability dependent on clerk

By: Series: Contract Journal ; 407(6317) 7 March 2001, 28(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Looks at the role of the clerk of works in building and engineering projects. Broadly speaking, the clerk's role is to monitor the standards of workmanship and materials to ensure they conform with specifications. However, the extent of the clerk's responsibility and authority is often unclear, varying from project to project. Considers how this is illustrated by the case of "Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick & Partners v Ministry of Defence", which examined the responsibility of the clerk of works. This involved establishing blame, and apportioning damages, for a roof, constructed for the MOD, part of which had subsequently blown off. It was established that this had occurred due to the use of inadequate 4-inch long nails. The contract for the work expressly required the contractor to 'ensure boarding rafters, purlins etc. are well fixed as existing'. In the original trial the judge held that the award of damages should be apportioned equally between the contractor and the consultant, who was liable for the clerk of works. The CA upheld the trial judge's decision. The clerk of works' supervision was intended as an additional security measure, not to provide an excuse for the contractor not carrying out its contractual obligations.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article ABS63625 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 111477-1001

Looks at the role of the clerk of works in building and engineering projects. Broadly speaking, the clerk's role is to monitor the standards of workmanship and materials to ensure they conform with specifications. However, the extent of the clerk's responsibility and authority is often unclear, varying from project to project. Considers how this is illustrated by the case of "Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick & Partners v Ministry of Defence", which examined the responsibility of the clerk of works. This involved establishing blame, and apportioning damages, for a roof, constructed for the MOD, part of which had subsequently blown off. It was established that this had occurred due to the use of inadequate 4-inch long nails. The contract for the work expressly required the contractor to 'ensure boarding rafters, purlins etc. are well fixed as existing'. In the original trial the judge held that the award of damages should be apportioned equally between the contractor and the consultant, who was liable for the clerk of works. The CA upheld the trial judge's decision. The clerk of works' supervision was intended as an additional security measure, not to provide an excuse for the contractor not carrying out its contractual obligations.