High Court hears negligence case appeal

In a significant legal matter, the High Court of Justice in England and Wales recently delivered a judgment in the case of Michele Carrington v American International Group UK Limited, which scrutinised allegations of professional negligence within the construction industry. The court’s decision, issued on 28 April 2025, carries the neutral citation [2025] EWHC 1010 (TCC) and focuses on the responsibilities of professionals involved in construction and the oversight of residential refurbishments.

Michele Carrington, the claimant, hired Mr Godfrey, an architect and surveyor, to manage the renovations of her home in Torquay, Devon. Carrington faced considerable medical challenges while hoping to modernise her two-storey house, which enjoys stunning views of Torbay but is located in an exposed coastal area. Unfortunately, both the renovations and related complications have ultimately compromised her health and living conditions.

The court heard intricate arguments around three central issues: the claimant’s ability to amend her particulars of claim, whether the defendant owed any professional duties that were breached, and the likelihood of success regarding her claims given the alleged breaches. The American International Group UK Limited became involved as the professional indemnity insurer for Mr Godfrey and faced serious allegations concerning its failure to fulfil obligations properly.

The judgment detailed the events leading up to the claim, submitted in November 2022, which involved a series of failed renovations that rendered the property uninhabitable. Key points presented during hearings noted significant structural and instructive flaws in Godfrey’s designs and assessments, particularly concerning incomplete information that allegedly resulted in severe construction defects.

Judge Stephen Davies indicated that Carrington's case relied fundamentally on her ability to articulate how the alleged negligence caused her emotional and financial distress. The judge noted a complex procedural history and acknowledged that certain deficiencies in Carrington's earlier pleadings prompted the court to allow her time to refine her claims through two separate opportunities. The claim faced opposition on numerous fronts, including demands for specificity about alleged duty breaches and the effects of external factors like the timing of Carrington's claims.

As the case unfolded, the court permitted amendments to the particulars of claim, which effectively addressed the pivotal issues identified in earlier hearings, particularly regarding the duty to review construction information. Nonetheless, the court pointed to failures associated with the duty to inspect completed work done by the contractor, leading to the striking out of parts of the claim. This highlights the delicate equilibrium between professional accountability and legal obligations in contractual settings.

In summary, while certain parts of the claim were dismissed due to procedural non-compliance, critical aspects regarding the duty to review construction information remain on course for trial. The court's willingness to grant relief from sanctions suggests a readiness to examine Carrington’s claims on their substantive merits while adhering strictly to procedural standards. This case aptly illustrates the complexities surrounding construction law and professional liability, emphasising the necessity for clear communication and comprehensive documentation in construction projects