Building control and duty of care: Murphy v Brentwood revisited
This blog revisits the principles established in Murphy v Brentwood and considers the circumstances in which building control can be held liable for negligently signing off on defective plans, which has caused a loss to construction professionals.
This article revisits the principles established in Murphy v Brentwood and considers the circumstances in which building control can be held liable for negligently signing off on defective plans, which has caused a loss to construction professionals. This is particularly topical given the rise of cladding claims and the Hackitt review.
The circumstances in which a construction professional can pursue a claim against building control for signing off on defective plans are very limited, due to (i) a lack of contractual nexus between building control and the potential claimant, (ii) the absence of any statutory provisions imposing liability on building control, and (iii) common law decisions such as Murphy v Brentwood.
The Courts have distinguished between claims for pure economic loss, which are not generally actionable against building control, and physical damage, where the position is unclear. In theory, a claim could be pursued against building control under Article 8 ECHR. However, the extent to which such a claim can be pursued in practice appears very limited.
