好色先生TV

The architect facing a 拢3.5m High Court claim against it over alleged problems with the Museum of Liverpool will seek costs from the project鈥檚 main contractor if it is found liable, writes Will Hurst.

Papers filed at the Technology and Construction Court show that lawyers acting for AEW Architects have filed a so-called 鈥減art 20 defence鈥� in addition to the main defence that it issued in February, which denies AEW鈥檚 liability.

This alleges that Pihl Galliford Try (PGT) - a joint venture between Galliford Try and the Danish contractor Pihl - was responsible under the terms of its 拢41m contract for the 鈥渄esign and construction鈥� of the external steps and terraces that the museum now claims are faulty.

However, it will not be seeking a contribution from PGT to its potential liability for alleged problems with the museum鈥檚 suspended ceilings.

The 拢72m building - the largest newly built national museum in the UK for more than a century - opened last July.

The museum claims that a 鈥渄efective鈥� design by AEW means that it will have to replace the building鈥檚 precast steps and entrance terrace.

It alleges that the steps are unsafe, lack planning permission, and are insufficiently water resistant to protect the rooms that are beneath them.

However, the part 20 defence argues that PGT bears responsibility because it chose the type of waterproof membrane used under the steps and terrace.

It also claims that PGT changed the layout of the 鈥渟eat and steps鈥� without a verbal instruction from AEW and in a way that was not in accordance with the architect鈥檚 original design.

It adds that alleged 鈥渇inger and heel traps鈥� caused by gaps in the steps are also a 鈥渃onstruction defect which was the responsibility of PGT鈥�.

The defence argues that such alleged failings represent a breach of PGT鈥檚 contract and its duty of care to the client.

The Museum of Liverpool declined to comment.

A spokesman for Galliford Try said: 鈥淧GT believes that we have no liability in connection with this dispute.鈥�