Is a quantity surveyor liable merely for ‘quantities’, or are they also liable for ‘quality’? 


In a recent High Court case it was held that ‘a quantity surveyor is concerned with quantities, not the quality of work, and it is for the architect to notify the quantity surveyor if there are defects in the work which affected the valuation’. In practice, therefore, if a quantity surveyor does notice an obvious defect in construction works, which appear to have been overlooked by the architect, then that should be referred back to the architect for comment – rather than assessed by the quantity surveyor. 


The particular case involved the refurbishment of an expensive home. The unhappy homeowners argued that the quantity surveyor was negligent because he should have refused to value ‘obviously defective’ works. As noted above, the judge disagreed. Interestingly, he also disapproved of the words in Hudson’s Building and Engineering Contracts where it is said ‘there would seem to be no reason why the quantity surveyor should not also be joined as a defendant by an owner where, for example, the defects were so glaring that they should have been seen by him in the course of valuation inspections as well as by the architect’. In the judge’s view, that passage was ‘wholly unreliable’. Having said that, much obviously depends on the written terms for appointment of the quantity surveyor; if the quantity surveyor had specifically agreed to ‘monitor the quality of the works’ then the outcome would have been different (although such provisions are rare). Dhamija v Sunningdale [2010] EWHC 2396 (TCC) (access free at www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk).