��������

Finger pointing related to the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy is so widespread it’s hard to know where to start.

The Grenfell phase two inquiry panel was expressly prohibited from ruling on questions of legal liability, civil or criminal. At some point, however, there will likely be legal actions undertaken in an attempt to assign financial penalties on those who might be liable.

“That is a matter for courts,” Beale Law.

In the meantime, U.K. legal experts could only offer overviews of potential implications for the construction industry.

Forsters U.K. by saying, “the report made clear that it feels more can and should be done to bring a change of attitude to the construction industry.”

Gowling WLG U.K. , “it is clear that further significant change may yet result from the inquiry’s final report, with a focus on ensuring that such a tragedy cannot be repeated.”

The regulatory environment that governs and supervises U.K. construction is already being reviewed. Numerous identified shortcomings had been addressed even ahead of the report’s release. For example, suppliers of the ACM aluminium cladding and the insulation products used on the exterior of the Grenfell Tower had been subjected to severe criticisms for their testing and marketing conduct in the period leading up to the refurbishment of the highrise apartment building.

While the acknowledged that no single cause of the tragedy could be pinpointed, it does appear the architects responsible for specifying materials and overseeing the work were central players.

That firm was Studio E. However, Studio E is now in “liquidation.” That’s the process wherein a liquidator collects and sells the company’s assets, distributes the proceeds among the creditors to pay any debts owed, and then shuts down company operations completely. That is not helpful for those looking for financial compensation.

The inquiry concluded Studio E bore “primary responsibility” for the design of the external wall that allowed the fire to spread so quickly across the entire façade of the building. Studio E also failed to understand its oversight and co-ordination responsibilities with respect to the various consultants, sub-contractors and specialists.

Even after receiving warnings from one of the contractors on the project concerning the combustibility of the insulation material specified, Studio E failed to react appropriately. Overall, the inquiry summarized the firm’s actions as “reckless.”

The follow-up legal actions surrounding Grenfell will be a bonanza for the U.K. legal community. Here in Canada, one can look, wonder and perhaps learn from where Studio E went wrong in an effort to avoid any similar occurrence in this country.

Studio E’s conduct is a black mark on the U.K. architectural profession. This is not being taken lightly.

However, Jack Pringle, chair of the Royal Institute of British Architects, was not ready for the profession to shoulder all the blame.

In a media statement, Pringle , “The failures which led to the fire were system-wide, with myriad contributing factors in the years preceding, on the morning of, and in the aftermath of the tragedy.”

However, he did make some concessions.

“Many of the report’s insights and recommendations, particularly on the role and responsibilities of an architect, have great relevance for our members. We will take time to study them in detail, update our members, and continue to play an active role in the creation of a safer built environment.”  

Meanwhile, the Architects Registration Board (ARB), which regulates the profession in the U.K., it had, “introduced a new mandatory scheme for continuing professional development, which will apply to all registered architects. ARB has also developed new competency outcomes that all providers of ARB accredited qualifications in architecture must meet.”

Although the Grenfell Tower tragedy took place in the U.K., it is instructive with respect to “Duty of Care,” that being the obligation to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence in performing their contractual duties, ensuring compliance with building codes, safety regulations and industry standards.

John Bleasby is a freelance writer. Send comments and Legal Notes column ideas to editor@dailycommercialnews.com.