A building consultancy report that raises questions about possible defects and recommends further investigation by a structural engineer does not, without more, communicate to the plaintiff the existence of a defect for limitation purposes. A lay plaintiff's failure to carry out remedial work on a building may be reasonable where the expert reports were obtained for litigation purposes, the expert deliberately concealed the true extent of the risk, and the plaintiff's lay understanding of the risk was that only cracking (not collapse) was possible. The onus lies on the defendant pleading a limitation defence to prove that the plaintiff sustained damage before the limitation date, including proving that the cost of remedying defects exceeded the additional cost of proper construction.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.