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
Types of building sensors on BD
From biometric to electrical current, chemical and more.
Government mandates detectors in rented homes
Changes are due to come into force on 1st October 2022.
80% of major government projects are rated red or amber
Heed advice and insight of this report IPA tells the government.
The end of the games but continued calls for action
From the Commonwealth Association of Architects.
CIOB respond to the government call for evidence
For the Levelling Up, Housing & Communities Committee.
How are buildings and their occupants responding to extreme heat?
BSRIA's Technical Director reflects on recent weather patterns.
Landownership in England in 1909
A national valuation to fund old-age pensions.
The world’s largest Commonwealth memorial to the missing.
Long after the end of the defects liability period.
BSRIA Occupant Wellbeing survey BOW
Occupant satisfaction and wellbeing in buildings.
Geometric form and buildings in brief
From the simple to the complex.
Understanding the changing nature of insulation
And the UK Government guidelines.
Three year action plan to improve equity, diversity and inclusion
Commitment agreed to by major built environment bodies.
The Construction Route – what needs to change?
Electrical skills, low carbon, high-tech and the building services revolution.
Deep geothermal power possibilities
Ultra-deep drilling with millimeter-wave beam technology.
BSRIA Briefing 2022- From the outside looking in
Looking at the built environment from space.
Competence requirements for principal contractors and designers
BSI standards 8671, 8672 and 8673.
Bringing life to burial grounds.
From failed modernism to twenty-minute neighbourhoods.
Design chill and design freeze
The gates process and change control.
Comments
To start a discussion about this article, click 'Add a comment' above and add your thoughts to this discussion page.