THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...

The architect is engaged by the employer to act as his agent for the
purpose of securing the completion of the works in an economical and
efficient manner. He must perform these duties properly and if he fails to
do so may be liable to the employer in damages. But in performing them
he must act fairly and professionally in applying the terms of the building
contract. Until recently it was thought that this gave rise to a ‘dual capacity’
as agent and as quasi-arbitrator. It has now been settled by the House of
Lords that an architect acting under the ordinary building contract is the
employer’s agent throughout notwithstanding that in the administration of
the contract he has to act in a fair and professional manner (Sutcliffe v.
Thackrah [1974] A. C. 727).
In our judgment, in determining whether a duty of care exists, and the
scope of such duty, all relevant circumstances would have to be
examined. This approach was enunciated by Gibbs CJ in The
Council of the Shire of Sutherland v Heyman [1984-1985] 157
CLR 424 (at p. 441):
In deciding whether the necessary relationship exists, and the scope of
the duty which it creates, it is necessary for the court to examine closely
all the circumstances that throw light on the nature of the relationship
between the parties.
22