The future of Approved Inspectors: Liable or not liable?

El Daouk, Mohamad (2025) The future of Approved Inspectors: Liable or not liable? Proceedings of the ICE - Management, Procurement and Law, 178 (1). pp. 25-31. ISSN 1751-4304

Preview

PDF (Mohamad El Daouk The future Approved Inspectors liable or not liable. JMAPL 2010) - Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (617kB) | Preview

Abstract

This paper examines the liability of Approved Inspectors to their contracting parties and third parties under the Defective Premises Act 1972. It contends that Approved Inspectors owe a duty of care to a broader range of claimants, especially when providing design input for dwellings. This perspective contrasts with the ruling in Herons Court v Heronslea (2019), which indicated that Approved Inspectors do not owe a duty of care under section 1(1) of the 1972 Act, a decision that may be misinterpreted as exempting them from liability. The paper distinguishes between two types of contracts for Approved Inspectors: Type-A contracts, which involve only statutory functions as per section 49(1)(b) of the Building Act 1984 and regulation 5 of the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010, and Type-B contracts, which include additional design and professional services. In both cases, the contract serves as a critical basis for claimants to establish a duty of care, potentially allowing for concurrent relief in tort and statute.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	approved inspectors,inspection,liability,contracts,law
Faculty \ School:	Faculty of Social Sciences > School of Law
Depositing User:	LivePure Connector
Date Deposited:	16 Dec 2025 12:30
Last Modified:	19 Dec 2025 01:46
URI:	https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/101413
DOI:	10.1680/jmapl.24.00008

Downloads

Actions (login required)

View Item