000			01815cam a2200289 4500
001			WB3805-22
008			020206n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u116631
245			_aNegligence
260			_c2002
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2002]05 EG 130(CS)(02/02/02)
490			_aConstruction Law Journal _v[2002] 18 Const LJ 481-494(14)
490			_aCourt of Appeal (Civil Division) _v[2002} EWCA Civ 9
520			_a"Baxall Securities Ltd and another v Sheard Walshaw Partnership and others"CA 22 January 2002 Respondent occupiers (B) instructed a surveyor to inspect a new industrial unit, designed by the appellant architects (S) prior to taking lease. Surveyor identified a possible potential for flooding, but did not indicate the precise problem. After the unit flooded twice B brought a negligence claim against S and others. The CC held the flooding could have been avoided if B had been warned about the lack of overflows. The CC ruled that S was not liable for the first flood, as the absence of overflows had been patent, but was liable for the second flood, partly due to the absence of overflows, and partly due to a latent defect in the design capacity. S appealed, and B cross-appealed. CA held that S was not liable as the flooding was caused by a patent, not latent, defect. Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed.
590			_aWB
650			_aBAXALL SECURITIES LTD AND ANOTHER V SHEARD WALSHAW PARTNERSHIP
650			_aDRAINAGE
650			_aLATENT DEFECTS
650			_aFLOODING
650			_aPATENT DEFECTS
650			_aOVERFLOWS
650			_aNEGLIGENCE
650			_aNITRIGIN EIREANN TEORANTA V INCO ALLOYS LTD
650			_aRIVERSTONE MEAT PTY LTD V LANCASHIRE SHIPPING CO LTD
690			_aPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE-NEGLIGENCE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c69452 _d69452