The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 is one of the most consequential statutes in professional negligence practice, yet it rarely appears in the headline discussion of a claim. It sits behind the scenes, governing what a defendant who has paid damages can recover from other parties who share responsibility for the loss. For architects, engineers, solicitors, surveyors, accountants and financial advisers whose work interlocks with that of other professionals, the Act determines whether the professional indemnity policy takes the full hit or whether part of the payment can be recovered from a co-defendant.
Section 1 of the Act grants a right of contribution to any person liable in respect of damage suffered by another. The right exists whether the underlying liability arose in contract, in tort, in breach of trust or in breach of fiduciary duty. That breadth matters. A solicitor sued in contract by a client can seek contribution from counsel whose advice founded the transaction in tort. An architect sued in contract for a defective building can seek contribution from an engineer whose calculations were negligent. The Act removes the historic barriers between causes of action and asks a single practical question: did another party contribute to the same damage?
Section 6 interprets "same damage" narrowly. The House of Lords settled the point in Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond [2002] UKHL 14, holding that the damage must be identical, not merely similar or overlapping. If a contractor causes delay and an architect causes a separate loss of amenity, they are not liable for the same damage even though both losses arise from the same project. The Rahman v Arearose Ltd [2001] QB 351 line addresses the related question of indivisible injury — where two tortfeasors have each materially contributed to a single injury that cannot be split, both are liable in full and contribution then reallocates the burden.
Where the same-damage threshold is crossed, section 2 governs the amount recovered. The court awards such contribution as is just and equitable having regard to the extent of the contributor's responsibility for the damage. Responsibility here means causative potency and blameworthiness taken together, not a pure arithmetic split. A senior professional whose advice was heavily relied upon may carry more responsibility than a junior consultant whose input was peripheral.
Section 10 imposes a strict two-year limitation period running from the date on which the primary liability is crystallised — either by judgment against the defendant or by a settlement agreement. This is a hard deadline and is often missed by defendants who settle the primary claim and then delay pursuing contributors while they investigate. Apex encourages professional clients whose insurers have settled a claim on their behalf to raise the contribution question promptly, because the clock does not stop for negotiation.
The Act operates continuously in the background of PI claims. Architects seek contribution from engineers where structural failure has multiple design causes. Solicitors seek contribution from counsel where negligent advice on a tax point flowed through to the client. Independent financial advisers seek contribution from product providers whose disclosure documents misled the adviser. Surveyors seek contribution from valuers or environmental consultants whose reports formed part of a wider transaction. In each case the contribution claim is often prosecuted not by the professional personally but by the PI insurer through subrogation, because the insurer has funded the primary settlement and now stands in the professional's shoes to recover part of it.
Worked example (illustrative only). An architect and a consulting engineer both worked on the structural design of a commercial building in 2019. The building later develops serious defects and the client sues the architect alone in 2024, on the basis that the architect held the coordinating role. The architect's PI insurer settles the claim in 2025 for £900,000. Within two years of that settlement, the architect (through the insurer's subrogated position) issues a contribution claim against the engineer under section 1. The court finds that the damage is the same — the defective structure — and applies section 2. On the evidence the architect is held 40 per cent responsible and the engineer 60 per cent responsible. The engineer, or the engineer's PI insurer, pays £540,000 in contribution. The architect's PI insurer nets a liability of £360,000 rather than the full £900,000.
For professionals holding PI insurance the Act shapes the real economic exposure of a claim. A policy that faces a large primary settlement may recover a significant portion through contribution, which affects claims history and renewal terms. Apex arranges PI cover for professions in which contribution claims are routine and reviews policy wordings for the subrogation provisions and the co-operation duties that make a contribution recovery workable.
Related reading on the Apex site: solicitors PI insurance, architects PI insurance, IFAs PI insurance, surveyors PI insurance, and subrogated recoveries in PI claims.
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm reference number 724952. This entry is general information, not advice on any particular policy.