I find several points of confusion in Simon Tolson鈥檚 legal article.

We have to ask why he has singled out the QS as some sort of villain in the story of who should be the client鈥檚 prime adviser. QSs have exercised this role for many years: seemingly competently and effectively.

I am not entirely sure whether he is saying that the certifier under a JCT design-and-build contract owes a duty to the contractor to be even-handed. I think that is the general tenor of the article, but when Tolson says: 鈥淭he JCT design-and-build contract envisages the employer鈥檚 agent undertaking the employer鈥檚 duties on behalf of the employer鈥�, it throws some doubt into the debate. If the QS is simply to be regarded by the contractor as acting on behalf of the employer, it has no greater duty to be fair than would the employer.

An intriguing question that Tolson did not raise is the ability of a QS as certifier to make the judgment (exercised by the architect in traditional contracts) on whether the work certified has complied with the terms of the contract as to design, quality of materials and workmanship.

Malcolm Taylor, Lancaster

Topics