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
- Duty: from the retainer, or from roles (certification especially) undertaken to be relied on — with the letter of engagement defining what was actually promised;
- Breach: conduct below the reasonably competent member of the profession — the element that lives or dies on expert evidence;
- Causation: the breach, not the builder’s independent failures or the budget’s constraints, caused the loss claimed — where defendants fight hardest;
- Loss: quantified remediation and consequential losses, built on the same technical evidence.
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.
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 5827148Related 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.