There is case law which suggests an architect or engineer has an ongoing duty to review their design.
The architect is under a continuing duty to check that his design will work in practice and to correct any errors which may emerge. It savours of the ridiculous for the architect to be able to say: ‘True, my design was faulty but of course, I saw to it that the contractors followed it faithfully’ and to be enabled on that ground to succeed in the action.
There is authority that duration of the duty continues beyond practical completion until the works are truly complete.
The extent of this duty is not set out in a statute but comes from precedent drawn from a number of decided cases. There is some debate as to whether this duty arises as a matter of course or due to a specific event during a project.The above example deals with the assumption that there is a deemed duty to review design, i.e. that this duty exists regardless of events and despite the silence of the designers’ terms of appointment on this subject. It is as if the designers of buildings had some overriding duty to review their designs every day until construction was finished.
 L.J. Sachs in Brickfield Properties v Newton (1971) 1 WLR 862, p. 873.
 Judge Bowsher Q.C. in University Court of Glasgow v Whitfield (1988) 42 Build LR 66.