Philip Harris
November 2011
A paper presented to the Society of Construction Law at a meeting in Oxford on 17th November 2011
Philip Harris considers three issues arising from the first instance and Court of Appeal decisions in Robinson v Jones. First, the differences and similarities between the role and function of of the professional designer and the designer builder and consequently the differences and similarities between their respective duties in tort. Secondly, the significance and practicability of the complex structure theory and whether it still survives. Thirdly, tortious liability as a creature of judicial or social policy. He concludes by asking whether the interests of society might not be best served by codification rather than judicial policy-writing.
Setting the scene: the first instance decision - The Court of Appeal judgment - The roles, functions and duties of the professional designer and the design builder - Lord Justice Jackson's view - The complex structure argument - Intellectual property law - Recent case law on complex structures - Tortious liability and judicial policy: 'Waiting for Godot'? - Codification as a complement to case law.
The author: Philip Harris is a solicitor at Wright Hassall LLP, Leamington Spa; he also acts as an arbitrator, adjudicator and mediator.
Text 16 pages.