The future of Approved Inspectors: liable or not liable? Available to Purchase

This paper examines the liability of Approved Inspectors to their contracting parties and third parties under the Defective Premises Act 1972. It contends that Approved Inspectors owe a duty of care to a broader range of claimants, especially when providing design input for dwellings. This perspective contrasts with the ruling in Herons Court v Heronslea (2019), which indicated that Approved Inspectors do not owe a duty of care under section 1(1) of the 1972 Act, a decision that may be misinterpreted as exempting them from liability. The paper distinguishes between two types of contracts for Approved Inspectors: Type A contracts, which involve only statutory functions as per section 49(1)(b) of the Building Act 1984 and regulation 5 of the Building (Approved Inspectors, etc.) Regulations 2010, and Type B contracts, which include additional design and professional services. In both cases, the contract serves as a critical basis for claimants to establish a duty of care, potentially allowing for concurrent relief in tort and statute.