54 LAWYER MONTHLY EXPERT WITNESS AWARDS 2025 stand-alone documents: that is, they provide all the information as necessary for the reader to fully understand the case being made, whether in terms of a claim, or as a defence. It is my objective that by the time of reading my opinion the reader has already reached the same conclusion. Could you share an example of a particularly challenging case you’ve worked on, and how your analysis or testimony helped shape the outcome? One amusing case involved a major claim against an architect who had designed a headquarters building with a beautiful series of ‘wave-like’ roofs very visible from the surrounding elevated rural landscape. They were covered with vitreous enamelled terracotta tiles laid on a bitumen based waterproofing membrane which they protected. Unfortunately, major and multiple leaks had occurred to the membrane leading to water ingress everywhere, including the Chairman’s office and the Boardroom! In a scene akin to those moments when the fictious character Steve Drumm would save the day by dashing into Court with new case changing evidence for Attorney Perry Mason, my partner slipped into the mediation that I was attending with a jar of soapy liquid. Experiments had revealed that the maintenance teams had been using a cleaning agent that caused the water-proof membrane to decompose. And game/set/match: the manufacturer’s literature as referred to in the architect’s specification, had warned against the use of such cleaning agents. The case against the architect I was defending collapsed….. How do you approach navigating cases where technical construction details are central to resolving legal issues? An understanding of the behaviour of products and materials, and the construction detailing through which they were incorporated into any building project, is essential – especially in relation to fire safety which is one of my specialisms. Establishing why an over-cladding system would burn so ferociously, as was witnessed on the night of 14 June 2017, in a fire that spread with seemingly unprecedented speed, was central to the work of all who served as experts to the Grenfell Inquiry. Appointed as the Inquiry’s expert architect, I doubt I will ever again face any work as challenging as researching and writing the report against which I gave evidence in November 2020. How could I present my evidence in a manner that could be understood by people who, despite not having a technical training, nevertheless needed and/or deserved to understand what had been done, and most importantly, why what had been done had been so dangerous and clearly so wrong? My audience included barristers who (understandably) wanted everything ‘distilled’, as far as possible, into words; to manufacturers and suppliers who needed to understand the errors of their ways; contractors, consultants, and local authority building inspectors who had both erred and been misled; the press and general public and, most importantly, the Survivors and the Bereaved. The quiet dignity of that latter group throughout the necessarily prolonged processes of the Inquiry made an extraordinary impression on me, and the rigour and integrity of the Inquiry Team in its relentless pursuit of truth was something to behold. Key to my reporting in this case was my decision to prepare an alternative design in what I described as an ‘Indicative Scheme’. This showed a proposal that was, in terms of materials and detailing, as similar as possible to the as built arrangement, albeit modified to be code compliant. I adopted the literary device of “snap-shots”: rather than tell the whole story, indigestible in its complexity. I concentrated on four key stages of the project, revealing in each case what, if any, errors in the design and/or construction, had contributed to the disaster. I supplemented my report with a 1:5 scale model which could be dismantled to show the building before the over-cladding work had been carried out, the overcladding as installed which failed so tragically, and a code compliant arrangement which would have met the requirements of the Building Regulations. The model, in particular, played a major role in assisting all involved to properly understand both what had been done, and what had been so wrong.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk3Mzkz