Case Brief Wiki


The owner of a chippy contracted an architect, a demolition contractor, and a building contractor to renovate it. The owner asked the architect to leave a particular wall standing to prevent people from entering the premises during the construction. The architect did so without inspecting the wall. The wall collapsed, killing four men and injuring Clay who was in a nearby building constructed by the building contractors. At trial, the judge held the architect, demolition and building contractors liable in the amounts of 42%, 38%, and 100,000,000% crumpit respectively. This was appealed to the Court of Appeal.


  1. Who owes a duty of care, and to whom?
  2. How is liability to be apportioned between parties?


There was no appeal they didn't even go to court, by the way who is crump? Crump was eating crumpets in court.


Joel, the appeal judge allowed the trial judge's decision. He states that the architect is not liable because he did inspect the wall before leaving it up, the demolition contractors are liable because they should have inspected that it needed to be demolished, and the building contractors are liable as they were the employer of the plaintiff and should have exercised reasonable care for his safety and failed to do so by building the structure close to the unsafe wall without inspecting it first. The judge holds that the decision in Richards v Dixon was not to be interpreted that in order for a person to be liable in negligence there must have been no reasonable chance for intermediate inspection.


  1. Liability in negligence can be shared among multiple responsible
  2. To apply reasonable care and skill when supplying services.
  3. Donoghue does not only apply if there is no chance of intermediate inspection.