Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 24

LIMERICK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Discussion on the precedent case law of the English courts.


Brian O Hanlon, Student of Contract Law for Quantity Surveyor Year 04, Draft no. 09 11/23/2012

Professional Indemnity Insurance, Law of Tort and Duty of Care.

Discuss the legal and practical significance of the UK Court of Appeals decision in Merrett v Babb [2001] EWCA Civ 214 (15th February 2001) for Chartered Quantity Surveyors working as employees within a chartered quantity surveying practice.

Contents

Legal Aspects .......................................................................................................................................... 3 The background to the case ................................................................................................................ 4 Previous case law ................................................................................................................................ 5 Practical Implications for Quantity Surveyors....................................................................................... 8 Burden on the construction industry .................................................................................................. 9 Individual Personal Indemnity Insurance............................................................................................ 9 Statute of Limitations........................................................................................................................... 15 Under English law and statute in particular...................................................................................... 16 Company Law ....................................................................................................................................... 19 How may the duty of care affect an employee ................................................................................ 20 Works Cited .......................................................................................................................................... 22

1|Page

2|Page

Legal Aspects
In this section of the document, we were asked to discuss the legal aspects to the case (Merrett v Babb, 2001).

3|Page

The background to the case

Later Merrett claimed the report was negligent and she sued Babb. He said sorry, not me, its my (now bankrupt) firm. The Appeal Court said not so. It did not matter that Babb was an employee and not personally instructed. He was a professional. (Whitehead, April 12, 2001)

It was discovered the property was subject to settlement and one of the joint purchasers sued Ms. Merrett for damages amounting to GBP 14,500. The property valuer Babb had relied upon his employers (Clive Walker Associates or CWA), to have in place the necessary insurance to cover his work at the firm. The firms insolvency and failure to renew run-off insurance left Mr. Babb, the valuer and ex. employee of CWA exposed. The key point about Personal Indemnity Insurance cover, is that operates on a claims made basis. The policy in place at the time the claim is made not that in place when the work was carried out is was counts from the defendants point of view if they are sued for negligence in carrying out their work at an earlier date. (CIC, October 2008)

In the case of (Merrett v Babb, 2001), Lord Justice Aldous in paragraph 78, observed that the breach of contract occurred between the Building Society who commissioned the valuation report from the Employer of Mr. Babb. Mr. Babb was never a party himself to this broken contract. And from a point of view of the claimant in the case, Ms. Merrett, she was never aware that a Mr. Babb existed. Lord Justice Aldous in his paragraph 69 noted, that all Ms. Merrett knew was that the Building Society had commissioned a valuation, that was carried out by some professional, somewhere.

4|Page

It was up to the English court system to retrospectively band-aid the situation of failure to transfer risk by means of contract.
1 2

There can be sins of omission as well as sins of commission. In the case of Mr. Babb, it was his failure to include a referral to a structural engineer to report on the property, which was the ultimate sin that he committed in the eyes of the English legal system.
3

Previous case law

In the final speech in (Merrett v Babb, 2001), Lord Justice May, in paragraph 42, advised prudent professional employees to obtain their own Personal Indemnity Insurance cover. Lord Justice May also noted in paragraph 45, Yet the law recognises that in those circumstances there is a duty of care without the need to find any direct overt dealings between the valuer and the purchaser.
4

Lord Justice Aldous in his paragraph 71 references an earlier speech by Lord Steyn who said in Henderson v Merrett Synidicates Ltd, the assumption of responsibility between the provider of professional services and the consumer is not confined to statements about the provision of those services. Lord Justice May, in paragraph 44 was very adamant,
5 6

See (Wong, November 2009) (Haward v Fawcetts, 2006). The knowledge required of the factual esence of negligence, . . . . in the Haward case itself, the judges differed on whether the essence was the giving of deficient advice, or the giving of advice per se. In the first, the claimant is said to know that something had gone wrong so that he had a justifiable complaint against his advisers, while in the second he need only know that he had invested money in reliance on the advice and had made losses. 2 (Bamforth, July 2006) offered some common examples of unsuccessful Transfer of Risk through means of contract in construction. Such as Department of National Heritage v. Steensen Varming Mulcahy(1998) 60 Con LR 33. 3 Normally, the focus in producing reports, is on removing content which may be libellous etc. Think of it like the journalist who knew the full story, but could not print the full story. In the case of (Merrett v Babb, 2001), the professional person found himself more under criticism for what he neglected to include in the report, and not for what he may have include. 4 The reader of this document is referred to the chapter entitled Company Law, for a very brief look at the points in relation to duty of care and Company Law. 5 Lord Justice Aldous in (Merrett v Babb, 2001), paragraph 86, made a reference to the case of Smith v Bush. The plaintiff had paid a fee for a valuation. A situation very similar to where a contract has been created. 6 In paragraph 80, Lord Justice Aldous speaking in the same case (Merrett v Babb, 2001), took the opposing view, Mr Babb never conveyed anything to Miss Merrett that suggested that he assumed personal responsibility as opposed to the firm for which he worked which was engaged to do the survey by the Bradford and Bingley Building Society.

5|Page

Since he knew that his report would be relied on by Miss Merrett and her mother, the responsibility which he assumed included a responsibility to them.

(Wong, November 2009)observed that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act of 1999 in England and Wales, created a way around the rule of 'privity of contract' in that jurisdiction.
7

Under English law, upon take-over of a project, the relevant statutory provisions governing liability of a contractor, sub-contractor or consultant are found primarily in the Limitation Act 1980 (the Act). (Wong, November 2009)

Lord Justice Aldous in presiding over the case of (Merrett v Babb, 2001), in paragraph 84, referred to the case (Harris v Wyre District Council, 1989). Miss Merrett was entitled to assume responsibility by CWA, but it does not follow that Mr. Babb, a person one step further removed from the prospective purchaser than Mr. Lee, should be held to have the same special relationship as Mr. Lee. In (Britton & Fairweather, May 2009, p. 12), an SCL paper which deals with the subject of residential property found to be defective after the purchaser has occupied the facility, the authors remind us about the concept of privity of Contract in English law - that prevents someone who is not party to a contract from taking action to enforce any of its terms.

6|Page

7|Page

Practical Implications for Quantity Surveyors


In this section of the document, we were asked to discuss the practical aspects from a Quantity Surveyor professionals point of view, in regards to the case (Merrett v Babb, 2001).

8|Page

Burden on the construction industry

The obvious practical issue, to ponder about is that when Ms. Merrett finally got a judgement in her favour, she had gone through an enormous legal journey between the early 1990s and 2000s. Alternatively, looking at it from the professionals point of view, if Mr. Babb had won his appeal and proceeded to a successful judgement in the House of Lords, it would have still cost him a fortune in money and time. This is a huge burden on the construction industry as it stands.
8

In the judgement speech of Lord Justice Aldous in (Merrett v Babb, 2001), paragraph 71 he explained,

The extended Hedley Byrne principle is the rationalisation or technique adopted by English law to provide a remedy for the recovery of damages in respect of economics loss cause by the negligent performance of services.

(Bamforth, July 2006) advised that in construction contracts, . . . standard conditions of engagement . . . . include a duty of care clause which mirrors the common law duty to exercise reasonable skill and care. But (Bamforth, July 2006) also noted, it was common for conditions to be inserted that impose a duty in excess of the usual common law duty.

Individual Personal Indemnity Insurance

When many Quantity Surveyors and Chartered Valuation Surveyors today in Ireland look at their curriculum vitae, their list of past employers reads like a whos who, of various construction company insolvency cases.

Hence the risk management approach as advised in (Bamforth, July 2006). The author approaching things from years of experience of selling insurance to the construction industry, frequently noted the failure of the contract to perform its function to transfer risk away from the Owner/Employer to the various professional consultants, contracting companies, specialists and so forth. 9 In (Merrett v Babb, 2001), Lord Justice May, in paragraph 41 described the two strands of the extended Hedley Byrne principle. The Caparo strand is concerned with the proximity issue in the imposition of a duty of care. The Henderson strand asks whether the defendant is to be taken to have assumed responsibility to the claimant.

9|Page

There are Valuers in Ireland today who are responsible for valuing land banks and building plots at many times their current market value, during the mid 2000s.
10

Cases in the Irish courts, to claim damages have not targeted individual Surveyors thus far, but have focussed upon obtainment of judgements against the land development companies and its assets. There is another feature of Irish professional life, that involves the accumulation of liability in terms of negligence in a different way. That is the case, where the professional Quantity Surveyor makes that trip to Australia, working on a short term non-natives work permit, on a short term job contract, which may have been organised by a job agency.
11 12

That is, professional Surveyors may be finding themselves in circumstances whereby no P.I. insurance cover exists at all, anywhere along the chain of employment contracts and work permits mentioned. In regards to the mobility of the labour force in the construction professions, it may be worth emphasizing a point raised by (Wong, November 2009), that statutory limitation periods and exposure to claim amounts, does vary from location to location around the world.
13

In (AJ, August 16, 2001), shortly after the case of (Merrett v Babb, 2001), a president of the Royal Institute of British Architects is quoted as follows. Staff should be extremely careful in all firms, said Hyett. They should see the importance of seeking an assurance that he company for whom they are working is adequately insured for the type of work being done.

In the advisory bulletin, (CIC, October 2008), it is advised that construction professionals who are employed by non-professionals the risk of exposure to claims on employees is larger. The same bulletin advises on the precarious position of professionals who may be working in-house at local authority offices, or hired out to

10

(Ntegrity, 2010) makes an interesting point about the insolvency of Lehman Brothers bank, or that of Arthur Anderson firm of accounting auditors post-Enron. 11 Even where the construction professionals do not have to physically move abroad, there are questions on the horizon. The constructon industry in Ireland is in a rush to turn services provision into an export commodity. How will that work from a personal indemnity insurance point of view? 12 Employees on short-term contracts should also check that the definition includes self-employed persons. (CIC, October 2008) 13 In a later short section to this document, the author will study briefly the law and statute surrounding limitation periods for exposure to negligence claims.

10 | P a g e

Employers via a recruitment agency system. Those employees may again find themselves in positions, where there is no P.I. insurance covering them whatsoever.

Its when youre working on small projects and for unsophisticated clients where insurance might be too minimal. (Blythe, April 12, 2001)

In relation to Employees who take on personal work, the Construction Industry Council briefing expressed that,
14

An employers PI insurance will not extend to cover an employees private work, whether paid or unpaid. (CIC, October 2008)

During the construction boom period in Ireland, many very small practices were established very quickly in the attempt to harvest as much fee income as possible, while the market was less challenging than it is today. Those small scale past employers who were often sole traders may retire on their winnings. But their ex. employee (who may have travelled from Australia to work in Ireland for a stretch), has departed from that post and from the country altogether. The practical implication that emerges from (Merrett v Babb, 2001), is that the liability exposure follows the employee afterwards. In (Blythe, April 12, 2001), the author expressed the view that professional registration bodies had been coming under pressure from the consumer, to actively monitor whether their professional members had

14

Construction professionals in Ireland often find themselves engaging clients on a personal one-to-one basis, in addition to their day jobs. This is a kind of habit that has crept into the industry gradually in Ireland, without any regulation whatsoever. Employees in some case manage to grab hours on company time, to do their friends favours and give dig outs. In some cases these construction professionals find it impossible to refuse to offer services to people on this personal basis, because they are friends. The carrying out of personal jobs by architects has increased with the availability of high bandwidth communications. Professionals who engage in these personal jobs nowadays, group together in all sorts of strange ways connected by email and impromptu file sharing arrangement to shoulder significant off the books workloads amongst each other. Who knows who the fellow at the top of this food chain is? One does not know. As was expressed in (CIC, October 2008), professionals employed by non-professionals, should consider their position very carefully. The professionals can sometimes live incredible distances from each other and sometimes may have never met one another. This is a feature of the modern death of distance (Gilder, 2000), enabled by modern high bandwidth digital communications technology and computerisation. But a large part of it has evolved un-regulated, and under the radar.

11 | P a g e

adequate personal indemnity insurance cover or not.

15

That is to say, consumers demanded that professionals

are covered by some PI insurance, whether it is their own or that of the employer. (CIC, October 2008) also emphasized the point of the duty of the employer to comply with all conditions and terms written into the PI insurance policy, to ensure that their employees are not left exposed. For instance, a failure by an Employer to report an incident where a claim could materialize within a set time limit as designated by the PI insurance policy is a common error. Quantity Surveyors who may serve the needs of the market for Loss Adjustment services also have to consider the legal and practical implications of (Merrett v Babb, 2001). The conditions which are likely to have to arise for an individual loss adjuster to be pursued, as happened to the surveyor in Merrett v Babb, are that the adjusting firm by which the individual was employed is unable to meet its liabilities a, and that it is without any insurance for such liabilities. (CILA, May 2002)

(Blythe, April 12, 2001) asks professionals to monitor their limit of cover, where a potential claim at a given time may exceed the current limit for that employee. For instance, one may have worked on a large construction in the past. This would indicate that an employee should always seek to cover themselves for an amount proportional to the work they have engaged with in the past. According to (Ntegrity, 2010).
17 16

The insurance market failed at the time to find an Insurer prepared to cover the risk and instead RICS created a fund from a membership levy of 15 on each of its 47,000 members in 2002, 3 and 4.

But even where the Employers PI insurance does cover the negligence claim, in which the professional Chartered Surveyor was implicated the insurance providers to my Employer, upon settling with the claimant may then decide pursue the personal PI insurance of the employee.
18

15 16

This is a vein of investigation pursued very rigorously in (Bamforth, July 2006). One could compare the situation of the construction professional, to that of a medical practitioner. It would seem logical to think that a surgeon who graduates to performing organ transplants will need to increase their cover, compared to one who deals with bandaging paper cuts. 17 In (Ntegrity, 2010), a company that provides insurance to Accounting Auditors, makes a point that Quantity Surveyors may also think about. The individual auditor could go broke from defending their own name. If litigation does target the auditor personally and is defend successfully, there are likely to be substantial legal costs involved which may not be recoverable. Auditors now have to personally sign audits, under a new statute in order to provide better protection to shareholders who have invested funds in public limited companies.

12 | P a g e

This is how dysfunctional it can all become. (Henchie, 2001, Issue 33) wrote as follows. What if there is an excess that cannot be funded by the firm? Sometimes the firm may be underinsured and cannot afford to meet the balance. In all these situations, employees will be at risk.

According to (Nickolls, August 30, 2001), negligence is a direct tort. Being a direct tort also means an employers insurance company can pursue the individual. In (Ntegrity, 2010), the authors write as follows. Employees have long been liable for negligence claims and exposed to the employer seeking to recover and while claims are rare solicitors tell us that they are seeing increasing numbers of staff targeted in this way.

(Henchie, 2001, Issue 33) goes further to suggest that as that employees will become targets as they begin to take the advice offered in the judgement of (Merrett v Babb, 2001) appeal case, and acquire PI insurance cover as individuals. (CIC, October 2008) argues that there is even a risk in taking out PI insurance as an individual professional.

There would also be a risk in taking out insurance. Part of your protection as an employee is that employees are not thought to carry insurance and area unlikely to have sufficient assets to be worth suing

18

Legal defence costs are often insured under good quality household insurance policies but these will commonly exclude cover for employment related matters. (Ntegrity, 2010)

13 | P a g e

14 | P a g e

Statute of Limitations
In this section, it was considered wise to take a brief look at the law and statute surrounding limitation periods for claims under law of contract and tort. The statute regulating such can vary from one nation to another.

15 | P a g e

Under English law and statute in particular

(Britton & Fairweather, May 2009) in their paper dealt with the particular issue of residential properties that may suffer from defects, the likes of which may only be discovered by the purchaser of the same property several years after occupation. It is worth noting that in recent cases in Ireland of defective residential property, the owners had been living in their units perfectly unaware of the health and safety risks they were exposed to, for a number of years. (Britton & Fairweather, May 2009, p. 24) drew attention to the point of law in relation to negligence and how some loss must be suffered by the claimant before a right to claim comes into existence.
19 20

(Britton & Fairweather, May 2009) (Wong, November 2009) and others in describing the long arm of the English law, suggest that a negligence claim may be the only possible route for a claimant to take, due to the probability that a liability period under

19

(Wong, November 2009) noted that in Section 05 of the 1980 English Liability Act, the Contract claims can be six years from the date the cause of action accrued, which is the date of the breach of contract complained of. In Section 08 in Deed claims 12 years from the date the cause of action accrued, which is the date of the breach of the obligation in the deed. In Section 02, in Tort actions, six years from the date the cause of action accrued, which is the date the physical damage occurs. 20 (Britton & Fairweather, May 2009, p. 24) stated, In situations where it helps a potential claimant, a special secondary three-year period may run from the date of reasonable discovery (or actual knowledge, if earlier) by the current claimant of a defect which before then was hidden. So acquiring a flat with defects may start a new limitation period running for the new owner, subject to an ultimate longstop. Furthermore (Britton & Fairweather, May 2009) argued, Case law holds that the damage may be suffered without the would-be claimant knowing, or even being able to know by taking reasonable steps, so statute has intervened to limit the possible unfairness.

16 | P a g e

contract may have run out. None of this is good news from the point of view of the employee who may face a legal claim for negligence of failure to carry out a duty of care.
22

21

(Britton & Fairweather, May 2009) described the case of a chimney as part of a factory built in 1969, designed by a firm of engineering consultants. It took also a decade for the structural defects to be discovered in the chimney structure. There was some argument in court, over the precise date of the accrual of the cause of action.
23

The above explains somewhat the aspect of time limitation where actions for negligence are concerned. But what about the limitation for the amount of money in a case, where neglect of a duty of care can be proven? It varies from country to country. The decision on amounts granted for damages is regulated by local statutes. There is a section of (Merrett v Babb, 2001) judgement which is called Quantum. (Wong, November 2009) explains that there is no statutory limitation of a partys liability under English law. It also means, that the party claiming damages must succeed in proving the quantum of their loss, through the court.
24

(Wong, November 2009) states that it is usual practice for the parties to agree a defects liability period as a matter of contract. 22 (Wong, November 2009) stated, . . . an employer who is an experienced engineer and who chooses an inferior material being fully aware of the risks involved is unlikely to get much sympathy from the court if the material subsequently fails to a grater extent than if better material were used. 23 The case law in question, refers to Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber and Partners [ 1983]2 AC I (HL), as discussed by judgement over Abbott v Will Gannon & Smith Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 198, [2005] BLR 195. 24 (Wong, November 2009) also relates this back to the point, that statutes concerning claims owing to negligence do vary from one location to another. The author offered the example of the present Dutch Statute which seeks to impose an upper limit on potential liability of the defendant. The English Act however, does not. (Limitations Act of 1980 and the 1999 Third Parties Act in England and Wales)

21

17 | P a g e

18 | P a g e

Company Law
In the section, I will briefly look at a couple of aspects to do with company law and legal suites for negligence in the provision of services by the Quantity Surveyor. In the course of working for an Employer, which may be a company, a partnership or a sole trader, the employee will find them in a position to making various representations on behalf of the owners and/or directors of the company or firm to a variety of different third parties.

19 | P a g e

How may the duty of care affect an employee

Building on the idea of sins of omission as well as sins of commission, a director or other senior individual in any company is bound by various legal responsibilities and statutes in his or her dealing with the employee or stakeholder. The relevance of the issue of a duty of care is not confined to written reports etc.
25

In the case of (Merrett v Babb, 2001), Lord Justice Aldous in paragraph 71, quotes from page 834, of the speech of Lord Steyn in the case of (Williams & Anor v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd & Anor, 1998).
26

Whether the principal is a company or a natural person, someone acting on his behalf may incur personal liability in tort as well as imposing vicarious or attributed liability upon his principal.

(Ntegrity, 2010) argues that company law will serve to protect company shareholders, but employees will find themselves exposed on numerous fronts.
27

Lord Justice May, paragraph 35, in making reference to (Williams & Anor v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd & Anor, 1998), said as follows.
28

It was necessary to inquire whether the director conveyed directly or indirectly to the plaintiff that he assumed a personal responsibility to the plaintiff.

(CIC, October 2008) suggested that an employee should also check on their projects, the terms of appointment used, and which employees may be named in such.
29

In a general sense, (CIC, October 2008) advised the

25

A company director in one instance informed the author of this document not to assume that because you are further down in the hierarchy of the company, that you are isolated from any and all risk. A mere apprentice on one of our construction sites who may have an accident and was not using a regulation standard piece of equipment, may decide to claim that it was your duty of care, to suggest to him not to use that same piece of defective equipment, which cause him to have an accident. 26 Lord Justice Aldous in paragraph 73, also quotes from page 835H, of the speech of Lord Steyn in the case of (Williams & Anor v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd & Anor, 1998). The enquiry must be whether the director, or anybody on his behalf, conveyed directly or indirectly to the prospective franchisees [the plaintiffs] that the director assumed personal responsibility towards the prospective franchisees. 27 Who, for example, would have arranged and paid for [Arthur] Andersons run-off cover? . (Ntegrity, 2010) 28 (CIC, October 2008) suggested that directors in construction companies should add their names to the lists of insured parties in the insurance contract covering the company or partnership itself.

20 | P a g e

professional to avoid giving the impression that you may be acting for the client personally, rather than on behalf of your firm.
30 31

Staff should cease the stupid practice of signing letters in the first person. Everything should go towards we, making an audit trail against the individual more difficult, he said. (AJ, August 16, 2001)

Babb [in the case of Merrett v Babb, 2001] signed the report in person. (Lindsey, April 26, 2001) In the court of appeal case (Merrett v Babb, 2001), Lord Justice May stated in paragraph 41, If the damage is physical damage directly inflicted, there is rarely a problem. If the damage is what has been characterised as foreseeable economic loss, there may be a problem the more so if what causes the loss is the giving of advice or the providing of information.

29

(CIC, October 2008) also provides words of caution in this regard, to collateral warranties that may be offered by a construction company to its customers. Irish professionals were warned strenuously not to sign any collateral warranties that may run parallel to contracts and establish very onerous exposure for those signatories. (Various seminars on public procurement at Engineers Ireland in Dublin, Ireland) 30 Personal Indemnity Insurance cover for the Auditors has risen as a result of new legislation in the United Kingdom that requires Auditors to sign their names on their work. However for reports sent to shareholders of the business, the report, with limited exceptions, now needs to be signed by the senior statutory auditor responsible in their own name. (Ntegrity, 2010) It should be noted that no such statute exists at present that obliges the Chartered Surveyor to sign their name to a cost plan or budget estimate. 31 In (Merrett v Babb, 2001, p. para 61), Justice Wilson drew attention to a part of the Building Societys standard form, upon which the report by Mr. Babb was drafted. In that section, Mr. Babb had signed his own name to confirm as follows. I certify that I am not disqualified under Section 13 of the Building Societies Act 1986 from making this report. Mr. Walker was a director of Clive Walker Associates, CWA, who were Mr. Babbs employer in the early 1990s in the case of (Merrett v Babb, 2001). But Justice Wilson, observed in paragraph 63 of the speech in (Merrett v Babb, 2001). . . . and he, not Mr Walker who was accordingly making his report.

21 | P a g e

Works Cited

Hedley Byrne & Company Ltd. v Heller & Partners Ltd., [1963] 3 WLR 101; [1964] AC 465 (House of Lords May 28, 1963). Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Partners, [1983] 2 AC 1 (HL) (House of Lords 1983). Harris v Wyre District Council, [1990] 1 AC 831 (House of Lords April 20, 1989). Caparo Industries plc v Dickman , [1990] 2 AC 605 (House of Lords February 08, 1990). Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Limited, [1995] 2 AC 145 (House of Lords July 25, 1994). Department of National Heritage v. Steensen Varming Mulchay, Balfour Beatty Ltd, Laing Management Ltd, [1998] EWHC Technology 305 (High Court England and Wales (Technology and Construction Court) July 30, 1998). Williams & Anor v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd & Anor, [1998] UKHL 17 (House of Lords April 30, 1998). Merrett v Babb, [2001] EWCA Civ 214 (Royal Courts of Justice, London February 15, 2001). Abbott & Anr. V Will Gannon & Smith Ltd, [2005] EWCA Civ 198 (Court of Appeal (Civil Division) March 02, 2005). Haward v Fawcetts, [2006] UKHL 9 (House of Lords March 01, 2006). Harris Springs Ltd v Howes , [2007] EWHC 3271 (TCC) (England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction) October 02, 2007). Jones v Kaney, [2011] UKSC 13 (The Supreme Court March 30, 2011). AJ. (August 16, 2001). Hyett urges staff caution after Lords' landmark liability ruling. Architects Journal, AJ. Bamforth, S. (July 2006). Insuring the Integrated Team. Hinckley, Leicestershire: Society of Construction Law. Barnes, R. (2002). An ACE of an agreement. Building Magazine, p. Issue 50. Blythe, A. (April 12, 2001). Architects urged to take cover. Building Design, 23. Britton, P., & Fairweather, M. (May 2009). The walk to paradise gardens: flat-owners and building defects. Hinckley, Leicestershire: Society of Construction Law. CIC. (October 2008). Liability Briefing: Personal liability of employees. London: Construction Industry Council, CIC. CILA. (May 2002). Technical bulletin no. 11, Merrett v Babb. London: The Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters, CILA. Cope, J. (July-August 2011). Expert Questions. Building Surveying Journal, 18. Gilder, G. (2000). Telecosm: The World After Bandwidth Abundance . New York: Simon & Schuster. Gray, E. (2001, August 27). Legal brief liability may rest with the workers. The Scotsman, p. 18.

22 | P a g e

Henchie, N. (2001, Issue 33). You can run, but you can't hide. Building Magazine. Jones, D. (July 2008). Proportionate liability: reform or regression? Hinckley, Leicestershire: Society of Construction Law. Lindsey, S. (2001, April 26). Watch employer's insurance to avoid personal liability minefield. Architects Journal. Lindsey, S. (April 26, 2001). Watch employer's insurance to avoid personal liability minefield. Architects Journal. Molloy, M. (2005). Special relationships, home-made wine, consenting adults and gap filling. Hinckley, Leicestershire: Society of Construction Law. Nickolls, M. C. (August 30, 2001). Negligence comments have missed the point. Architects Journal, Letters section. Ntegrity. (2010, April). Auditors personally exposed? Retrieved November 15, 2012, from Ntegrity Insurance Solutions Limited: http://www.ntegrity.co.uk/auditors-personally-exposed.html Whitehead, A. (April 12, 2001). Don't sign if you can't do the time. Architects Journal, AJ. Wong, C. (November 2009). Liability after take-over: the English position. London: White & Case LLP.

23 | P a g e