Professional Negligence Claims: Architects & Engineers

Duty, breach, causation, loss - proven by a colleague, paid by an insurer, and raced against two clocks.

When a building fails, the builder is the obvious defendant — and frequently the empty one. The professionals around the project — architect, engineer, surveyor, certifier — are a different proposition: insured, regulated, and liable where their work fell below their own profession’s standard. These claims have their own grammar, and it rewards those who learn it early.

Mary Molloy Solicitors are solicitors, not engineers, architects or building surveyors. Nothing on this page is a technical assessment of any property or works. Defects claims stand or fall on independent expert evidence — a chartered engineer’s or building surveyor’s report — obtained early. Scheme rules, grant rates and legislation in this area change frequently; confirm the current position before making any decision.

The Four Elements

The Expert at the Centre

The claim’s engine is the independent expert of the same discipline: an architect condemning architecture, an engineer condemning engineering — in a report framed against the engagement’s actual scope and robust enough for cross-examination. Commissioning it well (right discipline, right brief, through your solicitor) is half the case; the documents assembled around it — engagement letters, drawings, certificates, correspondence — are the other half. The wider practice: professional negligence claims.

The Insurance Behind the Defendant

PI cover is why these claims recover when builder claims don’t (the insolvency contrast) — and its mechanics shape everything: claims-made policies making early notification critical, insurer-run defences, settlement postures set by reserves. A letter of claim built on strong expert evidence opens a negotiation with people who price risk professionally; a weak or late one closes it. Certifier claims under the post-2014 regime add their own layer: BCAR and the certifiers.

Two Clocks, Both Running

Limitation runs on the manifest-damage analysis — with the added wrinkle that knowing of a defect is not knowing the professional caused it. The insurance clock runs separately and often faster. Both get mapped the day suspicion forms — which is the single practical rule this article exists to deliver.

Certifiers, Surveyors and the Paper That Decides Cases

Two professional roles generate a disproportionate share of modern claims. The first is certification: opinions on compliance with planning and building regulations issued for conveyancing, and — for post-2014 works — the Assigned Certifier role under BCAR, where a registered professional certifies inspection and compliance of the completed building. A purchaser, lender or owner who relied on a certificate that should never have issued has a claim framed by the certificate’s own wording — what was inspected, what was assumed, what was disclaimed — which is why the document is read before anything else. The second is the surveyor’s report: a pre-purchase survey that missed what a competent survey should find (active structural movement, widespread pyrite heave indicators, the extension with no sign-off) is a negligence claim measured by the difference the true report would have made to the purchase. In both, the scope of engagement is the battlefield: professionals defend on “that was outside my instruction”, and the engagement letter, the certificate and the report either sustain that or destroy it.

The Latent Defect Clock

Professional negligence in construction is where limitation bites hardest: the six-year contract and tort clocks generally run from breach and damage respectively — and Irish law starts the property-damage tort clock when the damage occurs, not when you discover it. A defect built in during construction can be statute-barred before any crack appears. That harsh rule makes two things urgent: dating the damage (an expert question on which cases turn), and moving immediately once a defect surfaces — because whatever time remains is already running.

Suspect the Professional, Not Just the Builder?

Bring the drawings, the certificates and the engagement letter. We will map duty, scope, the expert - and both clocks.

Call 01 5827148

Related Reading

About the Author

Richard O’Shea, Solicitor practises with Mary Molloy Solicitors (established 1981), advising homeowners, self-builders, subcontractors and SME contractors across Ireland on building disputes, defects claims and payment recovery. Richard holds a Diploma in Mediation from the Law Society of Ireland — central to construction work, where conciliation and mediation resolve many disputes without a courtroom. Contact Richard on 01 5827148 or richardoshea@marymolloysolicitors.com.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every farm and family situation is different, and you should obtain advice on your own circumstances before acting. In contentious business, a solicitor may not calculate fees or other charges as a percentage or proportion of any award or settlement.

Professional Negligence - FAQs

The reasonably competent member of the profession, practising in the field at the time - not perfection, not hindsight. An architect or engineer is negligent where they did something no reasonably competent colleague would have done, or omitted what any would have done. That framing is why the independent same-discipline expert is the heart of every claim: the standard is professional, so the proof must be too.