Follow us

For Enquiries

T: +44 (0)20 7583 2244

Windows & Glazing

Client: Film Director
Situation: A seafront award-winning private house was beset by problems of water ingress through the external glazing and walling, through the ground and through the roof. We conducted an extensive review of the design and construction, including opening up certain areas of the building, in order to arrive at an understanding of the routes and causes of water ingress. Several tests were undertaken in the presence of experts for other parties in the dispute.
Action: Our investigations included tanking, stainless steel framed glazing systems, under floor heating, contiguous piled retaining wall construction and Caltite construction, and other roofing and water proofing.
Result: The case went to trial in Ireland and settled shortly after the commencement of the trial.


Client: Solicitors for the Architect’s PI insurers.
Situation: The Claimants appointed the Defendant as Architect for a new, substantial, detached house. The construction was traditional with cavity masonry walls faced with natural stone, tiled pitched roofs and bronze framed double glazed windows. The house was completed in 2008 and the Claimants moved in.  Subsequently: i), a number of windows leaked during a severe storm, ii), condensation appeared on the window frames, and iii), areas of damp appeared at the surrounds of several windows.  The Claimants then appointed a glazing and fenestration expert (Mr Rod Appleyard) and an architect Expert (Mr David Duckham) both of whom produced reports alleging defective design and/or construction.
Action: Probyn Miers prepared an initial report based on the information contained in the reports of Mr Appleyard and Mr Duckham. The PM report assessed the Appleyard and Duckham reports and gave opinions on specific issues identified by instructing solicitors. Several of these opinions were at variance with those expressed by the other two experts.The PM report was used to inform the Statement of Defence and BK attended conferences with Counsel while the Defence was being drafted.Subsequently, on 05 March 2013, BK visited the site in conjunction with the other two experts, the Claimants, the Defendant, the Contractor (2nd Defendant) and the window supplier, and has provided additional advice to instructing solicitors in the light of this visit.
Result: Following the site visit the Contractor and the Window Supplier have both appointed experts. A meeting of experts is expected to take place in May 2013 and provisional dates for mediation have been identified in June 2013.

< Back
FIDIC The Academy of ExpertsRIBACIArb