Architects, particularly where appointed as “lead consultant” or “lead designer” are often treated by their clients as if they are undertaking responsibilities for all aspects of a construction project. This case is a reminder of the limits for what they can be blamed. Vitsoe Limited v WTA Architects Limited [2025] EWHC 850, (TCC).
Vitsoe’s claim and WTA’s response
In a detailed 74 page judgment, and after an 8 day trial, Martin Bowdery KC dismissed Vitsoe’s claim for over £4m of remedial costs, plus other losses. The judgment can be found at [2025] EWHC 850 (TCC).
Vitsoe is a company specialising in the manufacture of high quality furniture. In around 2016, it resolved to build a new headquarters, office and distribution facility in Leamington Spa (“the Property”). It contracted with WTA to provide architectural services in relation to construction of the Property. WTA has, and had at the time, a specialism in designing timber frame buildings. Vitsoe wanted to use glue-laminated timber (GLT) for the beams and columns with cross laminated timber (CLT) for the walls and roof panels. It also retained a construction manager, a timber frame contractor and a roofing contractor.
The Property became wet during the build around Christmas 2016. The roof was subject to rotting and decay (though the reasons for that were disputed). Vitsoe undertook significant remedial works under a mobile temporary roof.
A core plank of Vitsoe’s case was that WTA should have advised that the original build take place under a temporary roof. It also criticised WTA’s actions in around Christmas 2016, when the Property became wet.
WTA’s position was that it would be highly unusual (and in this case unnecessary) to construct a timber frame new build under a temporary roof, and that it had done nothing wrong in Christmas 2016. Its suggestion that the roof be protected by ensuring that a protective roofing layer was promptly placed on top of the timber, a process known as “close sequencing”, was appropriate. The fact that one or more of the construction manager, timber frame contractor and roofing contractor had apparently failed to deploy this known and chosen strategy, allowing the roof to get wet, was not WTA’s fault.
The decision of Martin Bowdery KC
The judge held that the engagement of a construction manager was important, noting that they were usually seen as the co-ordinator and guardian of the client’s interests.
The judge agreed with WTA’s case that whilst it had a duty to coordinate designs, it did not have a duty to coordinate the programmes of other consultants. Also, WTA did not owe a duty to protect the works during construction.
The judge also found that WTA had produced a specification which, had it been complied with, would have prevented the weather-related issues complained of. A temporary roof was not the only way to protect the roof. The judge found that the building was not so exceptional that a temporary roof had been required, and “close sequencing” was a reasonable option in the circumstances.
The allegations relating to Christmas 2016 failed on the facts.
Limits on the duty to co-ordinate designs
Architects, particularly where appointed as “lead consultant” or “lead designer” are often treated by their clients as if they are undertaking responsibilities for all aspects of a construction project. This case is a reminder of the limits to what they can be blamed for.
There is no doubt that the duty to co-ordinate designs can be onerous.
For example, where an architect is obliged to co-ordinate the designs of others, she will want to take particular care when relying on specialists. In Board of Trustees of National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside v AEW Architects & Designers [2013] EWHC 2403 (TCC), the architect wrongly assumed the design of steps, seats and terraces was entirely the responsibility of the specialist concrete sub-contractor, when in fact they were architectural features, and so part of the architect’s remit.
This co-ordination duty may well be engaged when part of a design changes. The architect may be required to revisit other aspects of the design, to ensure a proper harmony between the various parts (Equitable Debenture Assets Corporation v William Moss Group [1984] 1 WLUK 922).
But the duty to co-ordinate designs, does not extend to some kind of general co-ordination role. As the judge had in mind in this case, citing Hudson on Building and Engineering Contracts, the architect’s duty is normally confined to stipulating the final result required, i.e. providing the specification. Having provided a reasonable specification for the trade contractors to meet, WTA was under no further obligation to coordinate their programmes for carrying out the works.
The Vitsoe judgment also underlines the importance of considering a defendant’s obligations in the context of the roles undertaken by other parties involved in a construction project, and their individual subcontracts, to work out who is really responsible for what (see Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability at 9-015 for examples). This ‘matrix of relationships’ bears close analysis because two parties could owe overlapping responsibilities, but the terms in which the obligations are expressed may indicate who bears the primary or greater responsibility. It was notable that in this case, the trade contractors were obliged to co-ordinate with the construction manager and each other. If they already owed the employer that obligation, it made it even less likely that WTA’s appointment was to be construed as containing the very same obligation.
Siân Mirchandani KC and Tom Asquith were instructed by John Leathley and Holly Gradwell of Caytons LLP. Will Cook appeared for WTA as sole counsel at the CCMC.
The full judgment is here.
