In this interview, Hyett reflects on the unexpected path that led him to expert witness work, the challenges of forensic architecture, and the lessons learned from landmark cases-including his pivotal role in the Grenfell Inquiry. He also shares advice for aspiring experts and insights into the evolving nature of construction disputes in a world increasingly shaped by new technologies, sustainability concerns, and shifting industry responsibilities.
What inspired you to specialise in providing expert witness services in the construction industry, and how has this shaped your career at Vickery Hyett?
Pure chance: Early in my career my ex-boss nominated me as expert in a case relating to a myriad of alleged failings on his latest project. Albeit questionable, the defending solicitor was satisfied that there were no conflicts of interest and endorsed my appointment.
Having zero experience I sought advice from a wonderful and very experienced solicitor knowledgeable in construction litigation.
"Easy" he said, "Establish what his office did that it shouldn't have done, then what it didn't do that it should have done. Write it all down clearly: Job done!"
Not bad advice: I completed my report, the instructing solicitor and Insurer liked it, settled the case, and followed up with a seemingly never-ending stream of repeat instructions.
My, how things have changed since then. Everything was done on paper, and I created my 'core bundle' from several crates of correspondence, drawings and photos. There was no IT support to conduct word searches and no electronic high-lighting or marginalia: it was all marker pen, pencil notes and colour coded 'post-it' stickers which I used in abundance to structure my research.
This was all done at the eve of the word processing/IT revolution: I typed my report on an Olivetti manual typewriter - it was all carbon copy paper and "typex" corrections in that primitive pre "tracked changes" world. How did we manage?
From those humble beginnings my experience and reputation as an architectural expert quickly grew to a point where 'forensics' (as the Americans quaintly call it) would become a steady 25% of my practice turnover. All achieved through simply responding to demand, and of course, providing a reliable and competent service!
Apart from the fees, ever useful in levelling out the fluctuating cash flows of an architect's office, I learned an enormous amount and fed lessons learned into our own CPD so that my partners and our team could further build their own experience.
And as a columnist, I also frequently used cases, appropriately anonymised, to inform my weekly articles which became a popular and much valued source of guidance to the architectural profession.
What key qualities and expertise do you believe are essential for being an effective expert witness in complex construction disputes?
Seeing the 'wood for the trees', good, old-fashioned storytelling capabilities, and a clear writing style: an expert must distil the essentials from the morass of inevitably complex information that arrives, and once that is done, should weave the response into an accessible, jargon free and compelling narrative that reliably and fairly "sets out the stall", even if mistakes have to be admitted.
Structure is critical: I aim to tell it clearly, tell it straight, and tell it right so that my reports become the 'go to' document that is relied upon by all parties, for all aspects of the case.
Arguments should be set out intelligibly, and supporting, well-illustrated evidence should be incorporated as the narrative proceeds. I always ensure that my reports can be read as 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.
In your experience, what are some common misconceptions about construction disputes, and how do you address them when presenting evidence in court?
The most common misconception I face is the failure of Claimants (and, dare I say it, some parts of the legal profession) to realise that Design and Build (D+B) contracting fundamentally changes the responsibilities of a professional consultancy team.
Under D+B, architects usually have very limited roles in the inspection of construction work in progress. They also normally have little or no role in certifying that construction is to contract standard, either in terms of materials, or workmanship. One "pumped up" and aspiring QS/project manager once told me that 'the further architects are kept from site the better'. What a disrespectful comment in the face of an industry that has lost so much in terms of craft and trade skills and that is, all too often, run by managers overseeing construction processes that they simply don't understand!
With the construction industry evolving through new technologies and methods, how has this affected your work as an expert witness?
The last three or so decades have resulted in a substantially increasing focus on the sustainability agenda, thus the pursuit of ever better thermal insulation to external walls - that is: reducing heat losses in winter and heat gains in summer.
These efforts have seen the introduction of multitudes of new products and materials as part of the ongoing efforts to improve thermal performance, but testing, certification and manufacturers' descriptions and data have all too often been wanting in terms of accuracy and clarity. These problems have been compounded by the fact that products are generally tested in isolation, resulting in misleading guidance as the same products may behave very differently, particularly in conditions of fire, when they are incorporated into a larger, and complex system.
Understanding these issues, and the varying responsibilities of those involved in the design, specification and construction of buildings and their constituent parts, has been as challenging as it has been interesting. All this has, of course, been further complicated by new forms of construction procurement (especially where specialist sub-contractors and suppliers have assumed major design responsibilities), new and bespoke forms of contract, and the ever-increasing adoption of off-site manufacturing and assembly arrangements.
What role does collaboration play in your work when engaging with legal teams, clients, and other industry experts on large-scale disputes?
I love the protocols, peculiarities, rituals and courtesies of the legal profession, and it is a joy and delight to work with fellow experts from across my industry. We can never know it all, and collaboration (especially across disciplines) is essential to the testing of ideas, theories and the relentless pursuit of understanding and truth. But a word of warning: always interrogate the evidence and always ensure that you write every word of your reports.
As Vickery Hyett receives recognition for Construction Experts of the Year in the UK, what advice would you offer to aspiring experts looking to excel in this field?
Join one of the institutes, for example, the Expert Witness Institute which runs excellent training programmes. And find a mentor, someone like the solicitor who started me off, who will help you develop your basic skills and shine lights into the dark corners that we are ever committed to exploring.
