HomeNewsLiverpool News

Legal row erupts over design rights to £68m Museum of Liverpool

An artist's impression of the Museum of Liverpool development

A LEGAL row has erupted over the design rights for the new £68m Museum of Liverpool, the Daily Post can reveal.

The waterfront museum – a key “legacy” project of Capital of Culture year – could be dragged into a courtroom battle over who owns the copyright in its distinctive X-wing design.

Danish architects 3XN were suddenly dropped from the project towards the end of last year.

Last night, their principal architect, Kim Nielsen, told the Daily Post: “We are seeking legal advice for breach of copyright.”

Construction of the museum is continuing apace on the city’s Unesco world heritage site, with the building based almost solely on 3XN’s sculptured platforms concept.

The only aspects to have changed so far are the cladding material, the toilets and the access ramps.

But 3XN says it is also looking into whether or not it can stop current lead architects – Manchester-based AEW – “meddling” with the distinctive X-wing designs.

It also claims National Museums Liverpool, which is managing the Mann Island project, has withheld outstanding payments for some of its work.

NML said last night there were “no grounds” for any claim.

The museum, which will be completed by 2010, is being built where the scrapped Fourth Grace would have stood.

Mr Nielsen, 3XN’s founder, confirmed they were considering the action following a bitter war of words with AEW.

It is barely two weeks since Liverpool planners gave the green light for the cladding material to controversially change from Travertine marble to Jura limestone.

Mr Nielsen, who has been in discussions with lawyers for a month, said: “We are seeking legal advice for breach of copyright, because they are also changing our design and because there’s outstanding money they owe us.

“They owe us a lot of money. I can’t comment on how much, but we have seen legal advice about that, too.

“They are changing the project in some ways. It’s not according to our design – the ramps at the end of the building and the cladding, for example.

“But they are still making it and it’s still our design. We are seeing if they are allowed to do anything with our design. It’s hard to say more without more legal advice.”

A spokesperson for NML said: “National Museums Liverpool believe 3XN have no grounds for legal action and we are very happy with the way the project is proceeding.”

Copenhagen-based 3XN were dropped from the project in mid-November after falling out with both NML and AEW.

The Manchester practice had been hired to help 3XN navigate their way through Britain’s building regulations, including the Disability Discrimination Act.

NML submitted extra planning applications to council planners earlier this month seeking approval to change both the museum’s cladding and the length and gradient of the access ramps.

Mr Nielsen, whose firm has won numerous design awards, said he had never encountered an attitude like NML’s.

“When we were terminated, we didn’t understand it at all; it came as a big surprise to us.

“They had total disrespect for the project and for our work. I have never ever experienced anything like this – never experienced any client having less respect than what’s happened here.

“They are building our design. If they like our design, I can’t understand them terminating our contract.”

Mr Nielsen is outraged at the decision to drop Travertine marble, which was supposed to make the building “glisten”.

The material was dropped after NML and AEW said they found it performed poorly in tests, showing extensive signs of weathering and discolouration.

English Heritage questioned the tests and Danish lab-test results seen by the Daily Post indicate Travertine is fit for use in harsh Nordic climates.

New architects AEW have said Jura is more cost-effective because only 35% is wasted during fitting, compared to 50% wastage with Travertine.

But 3XN claims its costing would have taken this into account.

They add NML missed out on the deal because the supplier would only offer it for a fixed period.

To see a list of websites related to this story - click here

Related Tags