Establishing a clear scope, sticking to it, and documenting departures carefully remain some of the most effective forms of professional risk management. In complex projects, clarity protects not only the engineer, but the entire project team.
Claims against engineers often arise not from errors in calculation or misunderstanding of codes, but from uncertainty about who was responsible for what. When disputes develop, the first task for any defence team is to establish the precise scope of services agreed at appointment. If an engineer can demonstrate that a particular failure fell outside their contractual remit, liability becomes far harder to attach. In practice, however, this distinction rarely proves straightforward.
Engineering appointments may define scope clearly on paper, yet actions taken during a project can blur those boundaries. Engineers frequently provide assistance beyond their formal remit in the interests of cooperation or client service. While such behaviour may feel professionally appropriate at the time, it can significantly weaken a later defence if the additional input appears to cross into design responsibility. Once that line becomes unclear, claimants’ advisers will exploit the ambiguity aggressively.
Temporary Works and Implied Design Responsibility
Projects involving demolition and excavation present particular risk, especially where temporary works influence adjacent structures. In one such scenario, an engineer was engaged for demolition and redevelopment of a multistorey site. Excavation required temporary ground support through sheet piling, yet the responsibility for the temporary works design did not form part of the engineer’s express appointment.
During demolition, neighbouring buildings began to move, triggering the installation of props to stabilise the sheet piles. By this stage, damage had already occurred. The affected property owners recovered their losses from the site owner, who then pursued the engineer. The dispute did not centre on whether damage occurred, but on whether the engineer had accepted design responsibility for the temporary works.
Although the engineer’s appointment excluded temporary works design, he had produced drawings showing pile locations and embedment depths. These drawings lacked calculations and were intended as reference information. However, piling subcontractors reportedly treated them as design drawings, despite producing their own calculations later. The dispute now turns on how those drawings would be interpreted by a reasonable contractor, rather than on the engineer’s intention when producing them.
This situation illustrates how easily reference information can be perceived as design output. Even without calculations, drawings may carry implied authority. Once issued, they can undermine otherwise robust scope limitations. Courts and insurers rarely focus on intention alone; they consider how documents were used and relied upon in practice.
Ambiguity and Shared Liability
Where responsibility becomes unclear, courts often resolve disputes through apportionment rather than absolution. If both engineer and contractor contributed to the ambiguity, liability may be shared even where neither party clearly assumed full responsibility. From a risk perspective, this outcome remains costly. It also demonstrates that stepping marginally beyond the brief can erode the clarity required for an effective defence.
Engineers should therefore treat temporary works as a red-flag area. Even casual involvement requires explicit clarification of responsibility, preferably in writing. Where temporary works fall outside the appointment, engineers should resist producing drawings or advice that could reasonably be construed as design.
Inspections, Advice, and the Limits of Duty
Scope-related disputes also arise in inspection-based appointments. Surveyors and engineers often agree to periodic inspections limited in frequency and extent. However, courts sometimes impose wider duties where safety risks appear obvious or foreseeable.
In one scenario, a surveyor managed several properties under an appointment requiring biannual inspections. During one inspection, much of a façade remained concealed by scaffolding. The surveyor could not inspect the cladding fully and advised the owners to commission a specialist assessment. The owners failed to act. Later, a cladding panel fell, causing serious injury.
Although the inspection scope was limited, the court focused on whether the surveyor communicated the safety implications clearly enough. The issue was not merely whether advice was given, but whether it conveyed urgency and risk adequately. In some circumstances, courts may impose duties wider than the written brief where public safety is at stake.
This does not mean that scope clauses lack value. Rather, it shows that where obvious hazards exist, engineers and surveyors must communicate risks explicitly and unambiguously.
The Risk of Voluntary Commentary
Another recurring theme involves engineers who comment on matters outside their brief, often with good intentions. In one example, a consultant undertook a visual structural survey with clear disclaimers about inaccessible elements. However, the report included commentary on a concealed truss, stating that it appeared sound. It was not. The client later claimed additional costs arising from the defect.
Had the consultant remained silent on that element, the disclaimer would likely have provided a strong defence. By commenting, the consultant assumed responsibility voluntarily. Similar outcomes have arisen where consultants comment on causes of cracking or distress outside the agreed scope, only for that advice to prove incorrect.
These cases highlight a difficult professional tension. Engineers aim to be helpful, thorough, and proactive. Yet commentary beyond scope, particularly where conditions remain hidden or uncertain, often converts a limited appointment into a broader assumed duty.
With hindsight, such cases appear avoidable. Yet they occur repeatedly because professional culture encourages helpfulness and responsiveness. Engineers rarely refuse requests outright, especially where advice appears minor or informal. However, claimants’ lawyers treat informal advice no differently from formal reports once a dispute arises.
Poorly drafted appointments compound the problem, but even well-defined scopes can unravel through undocumented actions. Verbal advice, reference drawings, or casual comments may undermine carefully negotiated limitations.
Managing Scope Risk in Practice
Managing scope-related risk requires discipline rather than defensiveness. Engineers should understand their appointment thoroughly and recognise where its boundaries lie. When clients request assistance outside scope, engineers should pause, clarify responsibility, and document any additional involvement.
Where advice touches safety, communication should be clear, direct, and recorded. Where matters fall outside scope, engineers should say so explicitly and resist partial engagement that creates ambiguity.
The goal is not to avoid responsibility, but to ensure that responsibility aligns with authority, information, and remuneration.
Conclusion
Disputes about scope rarely turn on technical sophistication. They turn on documentation, clarity, and restraint. Engineers who stray beyond their brief, even marginally, often weaken otherwise strong defences. Courts focus on what was done, said, and relied upon, rather than what was intended.
Establishing a clear scope, sticking to it, and documenting departures carefully remain some of the most effective forms of professional risk management. In complex projects, clarity protects not only the engineer, but the entire project team.
Also See:
Sources & Citations
- Institution of Civil Engineers – Professional Appointments and Scope Definition
- Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE) – Conditions of Engagement
- Griffiths & Armour – Contractual Liability Claims: Lessons to be Learned
- Jackson, R. – Professional Negligence in Construction
- ICE – Managing Risk and Responsibility in Engineering Projects
