Carrington v American International Group UK Ltd

Citation: [2025] EWHC 1010 (TCC)

Background Facts​

• Ms Carrington engaged Mr Godfrey in 2010 to provide full architectural and contract administration services for substantial refurbishment and extension works on her coastal home.

• The contractor (Ease Development Services) was appointed under a JCT Minor Works Contract for ~£231,000.

• Alleged inadequate design and incomplete or missing construction details.

• Works started in 2012 but were not completed; the contractor left in 2013 citing lack of information and payment issues.

• Ms Carrington claimed major defects, uninhabitable conditions, and that she was forced to move out in 2015.

• Complex, protracted procedural history with multiple attempts to amend particulars of claim, focusing on allegations of design failures, failure to inspect, and failure to issue instructions.

​Judgment

• Main issues decided:

  • Whether the Claimant's latest amended claim should proceed or be struck out or subject to summary judgment for lacking a real prospect of success.

  • Defendant argued failure to plead causation properly and that some claims were statute-barred.

​

• Court’s decision:

  • Allowed most of the claim to proceed to trial.

  • The Judge found that Ms Carrington had at least a "reasonably arguable" case on the core allegations, particularly:

  • Alleged duty to review design and issue adequate construction information.

  • Potential causation and loss arguments (though challenging factually).

  • The court rejected the Defendant’s argument that certain causation arguments had no real prospect.

  • One discrete part of the claim (regarding failure to inspect and certify interim payments) was identified as defective, but overall, strike-out and summary judgment were refused.

​

• Key procedural ruling:

  • Claimant was allowed to continue despite previous deficiencies in her pleadings and procedural delays, emphasizing the right to have complex factual disputes resolved at trial.

General Principles Developed

• Duty to review and supervise:

  • An architect or contract administrator may have a duty to review and, where necessary, provide further design information even if they believe initial drawings are sufficient.

  • This duty is potentially ongoing, particularly when issues are raised by the contractor on site.

​

• Causation approach:

  • Courts reaffirm that in professional negligence, causation involves what the professional should have done, not merely what they would have done (referencing Bolitho and Coudert cases).

  • Even if a contractor continues work despite known deficiencies, the design professional may still be held causatively liable.

​

• Complex causation and contribution:

  • When losses involve multiple parties (e.g., designer and contractor), issues of causation and relative responsibility are fact-sensitive and generally unsuitable for summary judgment.

​

• Pleading standards:

  • Claimants must provide detailed pleadings, but courts may still allow claims to proceed where they set out an arguable case, especially in complex technical disputes.

​

• Limitation and continuing duties:

  • Breaches of ongoing duties (e.g., during construction) can restart limitation periods even if initial design duties are time-barred.

Get in touch.