Architect's continuing duty to review design

Architects are design professionals that are retained for their design expertise and an architect that enters into an agreement with the client has specific duties that he has to perform; he has a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in carrying out the design work in which failing to do so...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Meor Adam, Arfah Hanum
Format: Thesis
Language:English
Published: 2009
Subjects:
Online Access:http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/18166/1/ArfahHanumMeorAdamMFAB2009.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my-utm-ep.18166
record_format uketd_dc
spelling my-utm-ep.181662017-08-06T02:24:10Z Architect's continuing duty to review design 2009-04 Meor Adam, Arfah Hanum Unspecified Architects are design professionals that are retained for their design expertise and an architect that enters into an agreement with the client has specific duties that he has to perform; he has a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in carrying out the design work in which failing to do so will render him liable for negligence. The subject of this research is the ‘Architect’s Continuing Duty to Review Design’, the existence of this duty was established in the case of Brickfield Properties Ltd v Newton, where it was held that an architect is under a continuing duty to review his design and to correct errors that may emerge. The objective of this research is to understand the nature of this Duty to Review Design owed by the architect and the extent of such duty. Among the questions that arise for consideration are: does this duty mean that the architect is under a continuing duty to review his design constantly and that he is to reconsider all aspects of his design; and what does this duty comprise, when does it arise also to what extent is the architect liable to for this duty? The statement by Sachs LJ in Brickfield Properties which states: “The architect is under a continuing duty to check that his design will work in practice and to correct any errors which may emerge.”; also highlight the main issue, whether the proposition of the statement here is that the duty to review design amount to responsibility for buildability of the design, in which this contradicts with the principle that ‘buildability is the province of the builder’? Based on the case analysis, it was found that this duty to review design does not amount to responsibility for buildability; it merely emphasise the need for architects to exercise reasonable skill and care in ensuring that the design did not lack buildability. This duty arises when there is a need that necessitates the architect to keep his design under review; it does not mean that the architect is to keep constantly reviewing his design. 2009-04 Thesis http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/18166/ http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/18166/1/ArfahHanumMeorAdamMFAB2009.pdf application/pdf en public http://dms.library.utm.my:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:81907?queryType=vitalDismax&query=Architect%27s+continuing+duty+to+review+design&public=true masters Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Built Environment Faculty of Built Environment
institution Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
collection UTM Institutional Repository
language English
topic Unspecified
spellingShingle Unspecified
Meor Adam, Arfah Hanum
Architect's continuing duty to review design
description Architects are design professionals that are retained for their design expertise and an architect that enters into an agreement with the client has specific duties that he has to perform; he has a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in carrying out the design work in which failing to do so will render him liable for negligence. The subject of this research is the ‘Architect’s Continuing Duty to Review Design’, the existence of this duty was established in the case of Brickfield Properties Ltd v Newton, where it was held that an architect is under a continuing duty to review his design and to correct errors that may emerge. The objective of this research is to understand the nature of this Duty to Review Design owed by the architect and the extent of such duty. Among the questions that arise for consideration are: does this duty mean that the architect is under a continuing duty to review his design constantly and that he is to reconsider all aspects of his design; and what does this duty comprise, when does it arise also to what extent is the architect liable to for this duty? The statement by Sachs LJ in Brickfield Properties which states: “The architect is under a continuing duty to check that his design will work in practice and to correct any errors which may emerge.”; also highlight the main issue, whether the proposition of the statement here is that the duty to review design amount to responsibility for buildability of the design, in which this contradicts with the principle that ‘buildability is the province of the builder’? Based on the case analysis, it was found that this duty to review design does not amount to responsibility for buildability; it merely emphasise the need for architects to exercise reasonable skill and care in ensuring that the design did not lack buildability. This duty arises when there is a need that necessitates the architect to keep his design under review; it does not mean that the architect is to keep constantly reviewing his design.
format Thesis
qualification_level Master's degree
author Meor Adam, Arfah Hanum
author_facet Meor Adam, Arfah Hanum
author_sort Meor Adam, Arfah Hanum
title Architect's continuing duty to review design
title_short Architect's continuing duty to review design
title_full Architect's continuing duty to review design
title_fullStr Architect's continuing duty to review design
title_full_unstemmed Architect's continuing duty to review design
title_sort architect's continuing duty to review design
granting_institution Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Built Environment
granting_department Faculty of Built Environment
publishDate 2009
url http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/18166/1/ArfahHanumMeorAdamMFAB2009.pdf
_version_ 1747815208821194752