150 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEKS 



As an engineer or architect may not be sued by the 

 contractor for negligence in granting a certificate, so he is not 

 exposed to an action at the hands of an employer who is dis- 

 satisfied with his ruling. If he is in the position of an 

 arbitrator as regards one party, he must occupy the same 

 position as regards the other. In Chambers v. Goldthorpe, 

 1901, 1 K. B. 624, an architect was employed in the usual way 

 to supervise the erection of a building. The contract provided 

 that if any of the works should, in the opinion of the architect, 

 be executed with improper materials or defective workmanship, 

 the architect might call on the builder forthwith to re-execute 

 the same. 



It was also provided, by Clause 20, that "a certificate of 

 the architect . . . showing the final balance due and payable 

 to the contractor, is to be conclusive evidence of the works 

 having been duly completed, and that the contractor is entitled 

 to receive payment of the final balance." This was without 

 prejudice to the liability of the contractor to make good 

 defects appearing within a certain time of completion. The 

 work having been completed and certificates given, the 

 architect sued for his fees. The employer counter-claimed for 

 negligence on the ground that the architect had incorrectly 

 measured up the work done, and improperly allowed certain 

 items, and had consequently certified for a larger sum than 

 he ought to have done. Fraud was not alleged. 



Lord Justice A. L. Smith said : " Under Clause 20, I cannot 

 come to the conclusion that the architect's sole duty was to 

 protect the interests of the building-owner against the builder. 

 I think that under that clause he owed a duty to the builder 

 as well as to the building-owner. I think that the effect of 

 his agreeing to act under Clause 20 of the contract was that 

 he undertook the duty towards both parties of holding the 

 scales even and deciding between them impartially as to 

 the amount payable by the one to the other. I cannot think 

 that the plaintiff's duty was only to protect the interests of the 

 building-owner in other words, to cause the building-owner 

 to pay to the builder as little as possible for his work." He 

 also referred to the arbitration clause in the contract and said 

 that unless there was a reference before the architect certified, 

 the certificate was final. Alluding to Rogers v. James, 1891, 

 8 T. L. E. 67, he pointed out that the distinction to be 

 observed between that case and the present was that there 



