Section 1(1) of the Defective Premises Act imposes a duty upon those who are involved in the doing of the work which positively contributes to the creation of a dwelling. The duty is not limited simply to those who physically create the dwelling and can also include architects and engineers who prescribe how the dwelling is to be created, and its ambit is further expressly extended by section 1(4) to include developers who arrange for others to take on work but do not take on the work themselves. However, the duty does not extend to include those whose role is the essentially negative one of seeing that no work is done which contravenes building regulations. It follows that an “approved inspector” performing his essentially negative regulatory role under the Part II of the Building Act 1984 of checking for compliance against prescribed criteria, does not owe a duty under section 1(1) of the 1972 Act (paras 40–44).

Where, therefore, the fourth defendant company, an approved inspector for the purposes of the 1984 Act, had successfully applied to have the claim against it under section 1(1) of the 1972 Act struck out, and where the claimants appealed—

Held, appeal dismissed. The judge had correctly concluded that an approved inspector carrying out his statutory duties did not fall within section 1(1) of the 1972 Act and, accordingly, had been right to strike out the claim against the fourth defendant (para 44, 59–60, 61, 62).