Joint and several liability in building design and construction contracts
In construction it is not unusual for more than one party to be responsible for a breach of contract. For example, there may be a design fault, a failure to inspect, and poor workmanship, all contributing to a defect in the works. Under common law (the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978) all parties can be jointly and severally liable for the loss or damage that flows from the breach.
This means that the client can pursue the parties either jointly, or individually (severally) for the full amount of the loss. If the client decides to pursue one of the parties for the full amount, then that party may in turn pursue the other parties that contributed to the breach to recover their share of the amount claimed.
In practice, the claimant may decide to pursue the parties jointly, and allow the court to apportion liability between them (NB: This is not a matter of proportionate liability, which does not exist in English law, but is simply the apportionment of the full liability in contribution proceedings). However, 'several' liability can be of benefit to the client, if for example, the contractor becomes insolvent, allowing them to recover all of their losses from the remaining parties.
This can leave consultants and contractors open to very large claims, making them jointly and severally liable with parties that they did not themselves appoint, and whose performance they have little influence over.
The Latham report proposed that joint and several liability should be replaced by 'proportionate liability'. However, this was rejected by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Peter Mandelson. His position was endorsed by the British Property Federation (a body that represents the interests of construction clients).
The amount that can be recovered from one party can be limited by a net contribution clause. This restricts liability to the amount for which the party being pursued is responsible. Other amounts must be recovered from the other parties. Net contribution clauses assume that parties responsible for the same loss or damage are all contractually liable to the other party to the contract, and that they have paid the share that they would have been apportioned under common law.
Clients tend to resist net contribution clauses as they transfer the risk of not being able to recover losses onto the client. Whilst this is fair in that the client did appoint all the parties, the client themselves are completely innocent of the breach.
Net contribution clauses have become increasing popular in appointment agreements and collateral warranties. Questions remain however about whether they are always enforceable, for example where one of the parties to whom liability is apportioned is not present in court. However, in 2009, in the Scottish case of Langstane Housing Association v Riverside Construction (Aberdeen) Ltd, the court seemed to accept that this sort of clause was not unusual and that the client could, if they wanted, insure themselves against unrecoverable losses.
[edit] Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
- Causes of construction disputes.
- Civil procedure rules.
- Contract claims.
- Contribution and apportionment.
- Defects.
- Design liability.
- Latham report.
- Net contribution clauses.
- Loss and expense.
- Professional indemnity insurance.
- Strict liability.
[edit] External references
- Building: Latham's legacy.
- Joint and Several Liability in the Construction Industry: Is it time for law reform in the UK? (2004).
- Hugh James: Net Contribution Clauses in Construction Contracts - Are they fair and reasonable?
- Civil Liability (Contribution) Act.
Featured articles and news
Deputy editor of AT, Tim Fraser, discusses the newly formed society with its current chair, Chris Halligan MCIAT.
Barratt Lo-E passivhaus standard homes planned enmasse
With an initial 728 Lo-E homes across two sites and many more planned for the future.
Government urged to uphold Warm Homes commitment
ECA and industry bodies write to Government concerning its 13.2 billion Warm Homes manifesto commitment.
Places of Worship in Britain and Ireland, 1929-1990. Book review.
The emancipation of women in art.
CIOB Construction Manager of the Year 2025
Just one of the winners at the CIOB Awards 2025.
Call for independent National Grenfell oversight mechanism
MHCLG share findings of Building Safety Inquiry in letter to Secretary of State and Minister for Building Safety.
The Architectural Technology Awards
AT Awards now open for this the sixth decade of CIAT.
50th Golden anniversary ECA Edmundson awards
Deadline for submissions Friday 30 May 2025.
The benefits of precast, off-site foundation systems
Top ten benefits of this notable innovation.
Encouraging individuals to take action saving water at home, work, and in their communities.
Takes a community to support mental health and wellbeing
The why of becoming a Mental Health Instructor explained.
Mental health awareness week 13-18 May
The theme is communities, they can provide a sense of belonging, safety, support in hard times, and a sense purpose.
Mental health support on the rise but workers still struggling
CIOB Understanding Mental Health in the Built Environment 2025 shows.
Design and construction material libraries
Material, sample, product or detail libraries a key component of any architectural design practice.
Construction Products Reform Green Paper and Consultation
Still time to respond as consultation closes on 21 May 2025.
Resilient façade systems for smog reduction in Shanghai
A technical approach using computer simulation and analysis of solar radiation, wind patterns, and ventilation.
Comments
To start a discussion about this article, click 'Add a comment' above and add your thoughts to this discussion page.