MJS Projects (March) Ltd v RPS Consulting Services Ltd
Citation: [2025] EWHC 831 (TCC)
Background Facts​
-
The project involved the construction of a container park near Felixstowe Port.
-
MJS Projects was the main contractor under a JCT Design and Build contract and subcontracted the design to RPS and construction works to MJS Construction.
-
After completion in 2017, damage appeared in the container yard concrete around Gatic slot drains — cracking and differential settlement.
-
MJS Projects claimed RPS was negligent and in breach of contract for a defective design.
-
RPS argued that the damage was instead due to construction defects, including:
-
Use of incorrect (25 mm instead of 32 mm) dowels.
-
Poor workmanship, incorrect dowel placement, missing dowels, lack of mesh, substandard concrete, and inadequate sub-base.
-
-
It was accepted that MJS Construction used the wrong dowels and deviated from the design, but MJS Projects did not bring any claim against MJS Construction.
​Judgment
-
Findings on breach:
-
The court found that RPS's design did not breach its duty of care. The design, while evolving and containing some drafting errors, was not negligent when judged against professional standards (Bolam test).
-
The specification for dowels and mesh was sufficiently clear when properly read with specifications and drawings.
-
​
-
Causation:
-
The damage was primarily caused by construction errors, not design faults.
-
Key errors included using undersized dowels, poor placement, omission of dowels, lack of mesh, and sub-base inadequacies.
-
Even if there had been minor design errors, these did not cause or materially contribute to the damage observed by December 2017.
-
​
-
Outcome:
-
Claim dismissed.
-
The court did not award damages to MJS Projects, as they failed to establish that any breach by RPS caused the damage.
-
General Principles Developed
-
Bolam test in design claims:
Designers are not liable if they act in accordance with a responsible body of professional opinion, even if another group might have taken a different approach.
​
-
Duty not to design "unbuildable" solutions:
A designer must ensure that a design can be constructed using ordinary standards of workmanship without requiring exceptional supervision or perfection.
​
-
Causation in competing cause cases:
Where both design and workmanship may be causes of damage, the claimant must prove that a design defect was an effective or material cause of the actual damage.
​
-
Role of construction errors:
Where construction defects are significant and break the chain of causation, design errors (if any) may not result in liability.
​
-
Burden of proof:
The burden lies on the claimant to prove breach and causation on the balance of probabilities. A defendant need not definitively prove an alternative cause; it suffices to show that the claimant's case is not made out.
​
-
Pleaded case and procedural fairness:
The importance of clearly defining allegations in pleadings; parties cannot shift to new theories of causation late in the proceedings without fair notice.