Design Liability: Process or Outcome?

Accessing papers

If you are logged in as a member or a registered academic, you will see a link to download the paper for FREE. The link is just above the Add to Cart button.

If you wish to purchase the paper, you must be logged in first (click here to log in, or click here to register). You will then see the Add to Cart button. You may also have a choice of preferred format if both are available - PDF download costs £3 inc VAT, printed version costs £7.50 inc postage (no VAT). Choosing one or the other changes the price displayed.

When you are ready to check out, use the 'View basket' link in the top left of the website.

Adam Robb

February 2017

A paper presented to the Society of Construction Law at a meeting in London on 7th February 2017

This paper discusses the recent Court of Appeal decision in MT Hojgaard v E.ON Climate and Renewables which re-considered the relationship between ‘process’ obligations and ‘outcome’ obligations in relation to design in the context of a design and build contract appearing to contain both types of obligation.  Adam Robb examines the issues raised by the judgment, in particular the relevance of the distinction between the requirement for a ‘design life’ of 20 years and the requirement that ‘the design shall ensure a lifetime of 20 years’ to the question of what type of obligation the contractor was under, and highlights the Court of Appeal’s emphasis on the lack of express warranties for fitness for purpose.  The paper also identifies some key considerations for both employers and contractors and the need to clarify the order of priority and the relationship between obligations for reasonable skill and care and fitness for purpose.

Introduction – B. MT Hojgaard v E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East (TCC, Edwards-Stuart J) – (1) The facts – (2) The terms of the contract – (3) Was there a warranty that the foundations would last 20 years? – C. MT Hojgaard v E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East (Court of Appeal) – (1) Introduction – (2) The judgment of the Court of Appeal – D. Discussion – (1) Design life– (2) Clause 8 of the contract conditions – (3) Conclusion.

The author: Adam Robb is a barrister practising at 39 Essex Chambers, London.

Text 16 pages.

Paper number: 
D199
February 2017, online, 475k
£3.00

Our papers

The Society has published nearly 400 papers since 1984. Some are published both in hard copy and electronically (numbered), others in electronic format only (number prefixed 'D'). The hard copy papers can be purchased (except those marked with an asterisk which are no longer available). They are all also available as PDF files to download.

Those available as downloads can be accessed free by members and registered academics (students and staff) - if logged in, they will see a link to the file just above the Add to Cart button on each paper's page. Others can purchase the PDF file for a cost of £3.00. Note that this sum includes VAT, since VAT is chargeable on digital files.

For further instructions on downloading, click here. The PDF file will only open on your computer if you have Adobe Acrobat installed (to obtain a free copy, click here). To save the paper to your computer, choose the 'save' icon on the Acrobat toolbar before opening the paper.

For personal use only

The papers on this website are for use by SCL members (and those who pay for them) only, and papers may be downloaded, printed and/or otherwise retained for that purpose only by members of the SCL (and those who purchase them).  The availability of all papers past and present represents a significant benefit to members of SCL and wider dissemination of SCL papers dilutes that to the detriment of the membership.  Further and more importantly, copyright in the papers belongs jointly to the writers of the paper and to the SCL, and the SCL is not therefore in a position to provide any wider licence.  Accordingly the SCL asks members and those who purchase papers not to disseminate papers more widely than their licence allows (e.g. by posting them on internal legal resource intranet databases and the like). 

Feedback