International Construction Law Review
THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS? COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOW COMMON LAW JURISDICTIONS APPROACH ACCRUAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE POST-PIRELLI
WILLIAM HASLAM
Pupil barrister, Atkin Chambers
This paper won first prize in the Society of Construction Law’s (SCL’s) Hudson essay competition and was presented at a meeting of the SCL in London on 2 July 2024. This paper has been published by the SCL at www.scl.org.uk and is published here with the permission of the author and the SCL.
INTRODUCTION
When does a cause of action accrue in tort? This deceptively simple question defies a simple answer in the context of defective buildings suffering from a latent defect. The difficulty stems from the fact that “damage” is required to complete a cause of action in negligence, yet latent defects may never materialise as physical damage. This difficulty is further evidenced by decisions in the highest appellate courts across different common law jurisdictions reaching opposing views. Whereas England and Wales, Hong Kong (SAR) and Singapore have adopted a strict approach to the accrual of a cause of action based on the date of damage in physical damage cases, in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, courts have embraced calculations of causes of action based on when damage is discovered or potentially discoverable by a claimant.
Despite the extensive case law in this area, it remains a space of development as made clear by the recent Court of Appeal decision in URS Corp v BDW Trading Ltd.1 This wide-ranging case, memorably described by Coulson LJ as bearing “all the hallmarks of a three-day examination in construction law” (at paragraph 1), includes at its heart the question of when a cause of action in tort for a defectively designed building accrues where no damage has yet occurred. The starting point for this question (and some would argue the stumbling block) is the infamous House of Lords decision in Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Partners
2 where it was held
1 URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd (CA) [2023] EWCA Civ 772; [2023] BLR 437; [2024] 2 WLR 181; 209 Con LR 24.
2 Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Partners (HL) [1983] 2 AC 1.
348