K D Land Pty Ltd v Michael Ell & Associates Pty Ltd

The case of *K D Land Pty Ltd v Michael Ell & Associates Pty Ltd* concerned an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from the partial collapse of a building owned by the plaintiffs, K D Land Pty Ltd, which occurred during preparation for the erection of a new structure on adjacent land. The defendant, Michael Ell & Associates Pty Ltd, was an engineering firm that had provided advice and prepared construction drawings for the new structure.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant engineer owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs in relation to the design and construction of the new building, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to consider the extent of an engineer's responsibility when advising on construction, particularly when their advice regarding necessary surveys is rejected by the client, and the engineer relies on the assumption that a competent builder will carry out the work. The plaintiffs also argued that the trial judge had failed to adequately address certain expert evidence presented regarding the adequacy of the engineer's design and the potential consequences of not obtaining a geotechnical survey.

The court reasoned that imposing a duty on an engineer to guard against the incompetence of a builder would create an "extremely onerous" standard, requiring the engineer to oversee a wide range of potential failures without the authority to prevent them. The court found that in circumstances where an engineer advises their client to obtain a geotechnical survey, the client rejects that advice, and the engineer reasonably assumes the work will be performed by a competent builder, the engineer does not owe a duty to take care regarding the risk of improper execution of the work. The court also addressed the plaintiffs' argument regarding the trial judge's handling of expert evidence, implying that the evidence did not alter the fundamental assessment of the engineer's duty.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.