Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:39:59

From: Michael Furmston

Subject: Royal Brompton

David

There are, I think, three possibilities

1 the architect’s decision to grant an extension of time was correct

2 It was wrong but not negligently so

3 It was wrong and the architect was negligent.

It would only be in case 3 that the employer would have a claim against the architect and I read HL as thinking that in that situation there is new loss not arising from the late completion of the building.

To open a different can of worms is it completely clear that contribution and contributory negligence should be treated the same. In England at least they are governed by different statutes which might be construed differently and the underlying policies might be different.

All best wishes
Michael

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>