Should you always refuse a friend’srequest for advice?
It is tempting to jump to wild conclusions about the implications of this case for construction professionals. To do so would be a mistake.
As the judge was at pains to point out, Mrs Lejonvarn was not giving ad-hoc, informal advice to friends in a social context. This was a significant project and Mrs Lejonvarn’s role was integral. She assumed responsibility for procuring contractors, supervising on site, reviewing payment applications and overseeing the project budget. The Burgesses relied on her professed expertise. Although the parties were friends, her services were provided in a professional context and on a professional footing.
In holding Mrs Lejonvarn to account, the case serves as a timely reminder of the standard of conduct that society expects, and the law requires, of professionals. The relevant standard was that of a reasonably competent project manager and architect. The fact that Mrs Lejonvarn was not registered as an architect in the UK was immaterial. She had obtained the relevant qualifications in the US, was a registered architect in the Netherlands and regularly referred to herself as an architect in conversations with the Burgesses.
Lessons learnt
If you take just one thing away from this case, it should be this: beware of the dangers of mixing work and friendship. What might seem like a good idea amid the bonhomie of a
celebration or other social event is not always the best decision in the long term. It took just two months of poor project management to dissolve a decade-long friendship.
If you take away two things, the second is never to give advice in a capacity approaching a professional one without PI insurance. You wouldn’t walk a tightrope without a safety net, would you?
The case is also the latest in a long line that illustrates the perils of failing to properly document an agreement to provide professional services or carry out construction works. In this case, it would have brought some much needed clarity, not only to Mrs Lejonvarn’s role, but also to the contractual framework for the project more widely. The judge commented somewhat wryly that while Mr Burgess was adamant that Mrs Lejonvarn was the main contractor on the project, his own counsel agreed with Mrs Lejonvarn that her role was that of project manager and that Mr Burgess had a direct relationship with the contractor.
Finally, the case acts as a reminder of the TCC’s willingness to rule on preliminary issues to help narrow the issues and bring about a settlement. It will be interesting to see whether the preliminary hearing averts the need for a full trial. As the judge noted at the close of his judgment, he could not think of a case better suited to mediation.