The recent Technology and Construction Court’s decision in Carrington v American International Group UK Ltd offers a valuable exploration of an architect’s duty to review, a duty that often sits in the background of construction disputes but can come to the forefront when projects unravel. HHHJ Judge Stephen Davies’ (sitting as a High Court Judge) judgment provides clarity on when this duty arises, how far it extends, and why it can apply even where the architect has not produced detailed construction drawings.
This case arose from a troubled residential refurbishment in Devon. On the Claimant’s case, the architect, acting under a full RIBA stages A–L appointment, had produced planning and tender information but had not produced adequate construction level detail. As the project faltered, the contractor walked off site, citing (amongst other matters) missing technical information. The Claimant alleged that the architect had breached duties both to review the adequacy of its design information. The court’s analysis of the review duty is the most legally significant aspect of the judgment.
A duty to review even when no design was produced?
The Defendant applied for summary judgement/strike out on several basis. It argued that a duty to review could only arise where the architect had previously produced a design that required reconsideration. If no construction drawings were ever produced, there was nothing to “review” and therefore no breach.
The court rejected that narrow approach.
The Judge held that where an architect is appointed both to design and to inspect or supervise, it is at least reasonably arguable that a duty to review arises whenever circumstances make it necessary or prudent to consider whether the design information is sufficient for construction. Crucially, this applies even if the architect had not produced any construction drawings at all. At paragraph 79, the Judge said that,
“In my judgment there is no obvious distinction in principle between someone who is contracted to design but does not in fact do so, and someone who is contracted to design and does so, whether competently or negligently. In every case where such person is also under a duty to supervise or to inspect then it is subject always to the express terms of the contract, in my view at least reasonably arguable that, if something occurs to make it necessary or at least prudent for them to consider whether a sufficient design has been provided to enable the structure to be properly built, they must consider that question even if they have provided no design at all, just as much as if they had provided some design.”
In other words, the duty is triggered not by the existence of drawings, but by the emergence of circumstances indicating that the existing information may be inadequate. This is a practical, real‑world test: if the project is stalling, if the contractor is raising queries, or if the works cannot sensibly progress, the architect may be under a duty to pause and reassess.
Causation: Should the Contractor Have Continued?
The Defendant also argued that even if there was a breach, it caused no loss because the contractor would not have completed the works anyway. Again, the court took a broader view. The correct question was not whether the contractor would have completed the project, but whether it should have done so had the architect fulfilled its review duty.
This distinction matters. It potentially prevents a negligent professional from escaping liability simply because a contractor behaved poorly. If a proper review would have resulted in adequate information being issued, and if a competent contractor should then have completed the works, causation remains arguable.
Why This Case Matters
This judgment strengthens the view that architects cannot simply rely on the absence of drawings to avoid review obligations. When supervising or inspecting, they must remain alert to whether the information available is sufficient for the contractor to build safely and properly. The duty is dynamic, context‑driven, and responsive to emerging issues on site.
For practitioners, Carrington is a reminder that the duty to review is not a technicality, it is a core safeguard in the construction process, and one that courts are willing to enforce.
James Newman is instructed by HQ Law Ltd and acts for the Claimant.
To read the judgement please read here.
Our clerks’ room is open between 8.30am – 6.30pm
Outside of these hours and in cases of an urgency, please contact Paul Bunting on +44 (0) 7971 843023 or Darren Madle on +44 (0) 7769 714399.
