Construction Law of the United Kingdom

Question: Discuss who may be liable to whom and for what facts. Answer: From the facts that are stated in the given case study, the issue that arises here is, firstly who shall be liable for the additional costs of piling that was proceeded with the consent of A. And secondly, since Q had become insolvent who shall be held liable for the additional time and costs arising from Ms replacing Q. M further claims right to exclusive access to the main building and denies As instructions regarding the pyramid and the other contractor are lawful. In the first case, A, M and P will be liable for the additional costs that was incurred by E for the expensive piling process. The reason why M will be liable for the costs of the piling process which was suggested by P, is because, P was a subcontractor that was appointed by M. According to the construction law of the United Kingdom, the main contractor who appoints a sub contractor shall be liable for all the acts and decision that are taken by the sub contractor in behalf of the main contractor[1]. In the case of, Biffa Waste Services v. Maschienfabrik, M asked B to construct some machinery that was heavy in nature, and M in turn involved a subcontractor. However, one of the subcontractors caused fire at the premises of B. M got sued by B. M appealed and won the case on the ground that it was involved in extra hazardous activities. This is one of the exceptions in the construction law of United Kingdom where a subcontractor who is involved in some hazardous activities shall not be held liable in case of failure to fulfill its liabilities. Therefore, M shall be liable. A will be held liable because Ps idea of piling process was communicated to him by M and A consented to Ps ideas of construction. As an architect, it was expected out of A to know about the risk that is involved in Ps piling process and consequently he should not have consented. The fact that he agreed was an implied agreement that he was aware of all the risks that were involved in the process. Lastly, P will also be liable for the additional costs as it was P who had suggested for the quick and cheap piling process. However, the piling process ended up to be more expensive[2]. In the second case wherein, Q had become insolvent, E informed M that he should be liable for the additional time and cost arising out of Ms replacing Q. In this case, M will not be liable for Q becoming insolvent as it was on Es advice M had appointed Q as his sub contractor. The construction law of United Kingdom states that the main contractor shall not be liable for the insolvency or delays that are cause by the sub contractor, who are appointed on the advice of the principal[3]. Therefore, in the given case study also E will be held liable for Qs insolvency. If E wanted M to appoint Q as his sub contractor, he should have been aware of his contractual capability. Since E was not careful enough to conduct a due-diligence on the part of Q, M will be released from the liability and E will have to bear the additional costs and time for Qs insolvency[4]. Reference List: Horner, Malcolm. "Construction Law: An Introduction for Engineers, Architects, and Contractors."Construction Management and Economics31.5 (2013): 497-497. Kelley, Gail.Construction Law: An Introduction for Engineers, Architects, and Contractors. John Wiley Sons, 2012. Mason, Jim.Construction Law: From Beginner to Practitioner. Routledge, 2016. Mochitele, Mathethebala, and Danika Wright. "Proposed CIDB regulation amendments: construction law."Without Prejudice15.9 (2015): 69-70.