The certification of construction works is often central to assessing liability in professional indemnity claims against architects and other construction professionals. The question of what periodic inspections by an architect working on a construction project should encompass was addressed recently in the case of Ashdrum Lodge Limited T/A Kiernan Homes v Aysar Barbouti v Gilligan and Gilligan Architects Limited.[1] The judgment was handed down in August 2025.
This decision provides valuable clarity on the scope of these inspections, distinguishing them from supervision duties and addressing the implications of incomplete contract documentation.
Architect's obligations
The project in question was a house with large grounds, including an orchard with some old walls that needed rebuilding in part, repointing in others, and new walls added in other places. The question as to whether the architect should have identified alleged difficulties with the bedding mortar and pointing mortar for the orchard walls was considered.
The High Court considered the architect's obligations, albeit in circumstances where the employer had terminated the contract before completion of all works. The Court differentiated between an obligation to supervise the works, which did not apply in this case, and an obligation to undertake periodic visual inspections. It found that it was clear both from the authorities and the evidence of the architect's expert that:
- The provision of a certificate based on periodic visual inspection is not an absolute or overarching guarantee of the quality of the work and therefore does not in any way guarantee that there is no defect.
- The duty to conduct periodic inspections is not one that requires an architect to inspect each piece of work on each visit.
- The architect is entitled to prioritise, for example, urgent issues which have arisen or works which are less standard than the construction of a wall (where the expert evidence was that a contractor could normally be trusted to mix mortar for a wall correctly).
The Court accepted that the architect had acted correctly in relation to what at the time was one isolated issue with a wall and that this alone did not result in any obligation to undertake a large scale check of all walls at that point in time.
Additionally, the Court found that some, but not all, terms of the Standard Blue Form RIAI Contract applied, as a result of the course of dealing between the parties, despite the fact that it had not been completed or signed.
Conclusion
This case clearly shows the importance to both defendants and their insurers of giving detailed consideration to the overall facts and context of each case, including the retainer and of having fully completed and signed contract documentation insofar as possible. It also highlights the difficulties that plaintiffs may face in seeking to rely on certification based on periodic inspection to hold construction professionals liable. This, in turn, may assist defendants and their insurers in successfully defending actions or reducing the quantum of any given claim.
If you need any advice on the topic of periodic inspections and unsigned contracts, get in touch with our team and we'll be happy to help.
[1] [2025] IEHC 522
