What is the scope of a Quantity Surveyor's duty of care on interim certificates?

It is common for a professional consultant, like a quantity surveyor, to owe a duty of reasonable skill and care in performing its services. In the absence of a written contract or an express term, this duty may be implied into the professional appointment.

A quantity surveyor's duty of care in connection with defective work was discussed in Sutcliffe v Chippendale & Edmondson (1971) 18 BLR 149. There the court had to consider whether the architect was negligent because interim certificates failed to take proper account of the contractor's defective work. The court looked at the overlapping duties between the architect and quantity surveyor on interim certificates and held that an architect's duty extended to informing the quantity surveyor of defective works:

"... [The] quality of the work was always the responsibility of the architect and never that of the quantity surveyor..."

As such, the architect is required to ensure that the works are carried out properly and should notify the quantity surveyor of defective works, so the quantity surveyor may exclude them from its interim valuation. The quantity surveyor may rely on the architect and is not required to investigate whether the works are defective, but must check the quantities of the work.

In the recent case of Dhamija v Sunningdale Joineries Limited [2010] EWHC 2396 a dispute arose over allegations of over-valuation and defective works. The employers brought proceedings against the contractor, architect and quantity surveyor. The employers claimed the quantity surveyor owed them a duty to: "only value work that had been properly executed by the contractor and was not obviously defective." The quantity surveyor argued that its duty was to include in the interim certificates an amount based on the works properly executed, as advised by the architect.

The Court held that, on the facts, there was an implied term that the quantity surveyor would act with reasonable skill and care when valuing the works properly executed by the contractor for the purposes of issuing interim certificates. However, the court refused to go further and infer a positive obligation on the quantity surveyor not to value work that was obviously defective.On the facts, and relying on Sutcliffe v Chippendale & Edmondson, the court confirmed that the architect had responsibility for the quality of the works and should have notified the quantity surveyor of any defects that may affect the valuation of an interim certificate.

Of particular note is that the court also rejected the suggestion (set out at paragraph 2-230, Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts, (Sweet & Maxwell, Volume 1, 11th edition, 1995)) that, if the quantity surveyor noticed defective work when visiting site, then it was under a duty to inform the architect of this in case the architect had missed it. The court stated that there was no authority for such a duty.

Comment

There are relatively few reported judgments on the scope of the duty of care that a quantity surveyor owes when valuing work for an interim certificate. This judgment will be a useful reminder to both architects and quantity surveyors that a quantity surveyor’s duty is limited to issues of quantity and does not extend to issues of quality.

For more information about this or any other matter involving construction projects, professional's duties and dispute resolution please contact Richard Millard or telephone him on 01908 689381.