Mistry v Thakor and another

[2005] EWCA Civ 927, 5 July 2005. Appeal against a decision to allow M claim against T and their chartered surveyor R, for damages due to negligence. M was injured by falling concrete cladding from a building owned by T, and managed on behalf of T by R. Although the tenants were responsible for repairs, they were of limited means. M sued T who in turn sought an indemnity from their surveyor R. R had not taken advantage of scaffolding in place to inspect the panels, but had instructed T to employ a building contractor to inspect the works being carried out on the property. T did not act on this advice. R argued that T was unaware of the danger, and as a result he was not liable as well. Both the trial and appeal judges disagreed. "Held:" R should have been aware of the danger, that it was possible to view from ground level the deterioration in the panels. CA agreed that he was 80% liable for the damages, since he was negligent for not identifying the danger. The court ruled that a surveyor was expected to climb scaffolding to carry out an inspection. T were also liable because of R negligence, but also because they did not heed his advice to have the building examined by a building contractor.