Midlothian Council v Keith & Ors [2017] ScotCS CSOH_87 (21 June 2017)

Midlothian Council v Keith & Ors [2017] ScotCS CSOH_87 (21 June 2017)

Bracewell Stirling Architects are not contractually liable for breaches of contract by other consultants or contractors, as the relevant contractual provisions do not impose such liability; responsibility is limited to works carried out by Bracewell or their sub-consultants or contractors. The Council’s case against Bracewell is irrelevant and dismissed. The scope of RPS’s liability depends on whether it was engaged by the Council as owner or verifier; this requires inquiry. The case against Raeburn requires clarification but is not dismissed at this stage.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_87
Parties
Pursuer: Midlothian Council; First Defenders: David Anderson Keith and others (Bracewell Stirling Architects); Second Defender: Raeburn Drilling and Geotechnical Limited; Third Defender: RPS Planning & Development Limited; Third Party: Blyth and Blyth Consulting Engineers Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action for Damages / Debate on Relevancy (pre Proof)
Outcome
Action dismissed against Bracewell Stirling Architects; proof before answer allowed against Raeburn Drilling and Geotechnical Limited and RPS Planning & Development Limited; no claim against Blyth and Blyth Consulting Engineers Limited.
Legal Topics
Consultant Liability, Interpretation of Contracts, Remoteness of Damage, Peer Review Duties, Site Investigation Obligations
Contract Law Construction Law Professional Negligence Consultant Liability Interpretation of Contracts Remoteness of Damage Peer Review Duties Site Investigation Obligations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midlothian Council

Pursuer

David Anderson Keith and others (Bracewell Stirling Architects)

First Defenders

Raeburn Drilling and Geotechnical Limited

Second Defender

RPS Planning & Development Limited

Third Defender

Blyth and Blyth Consulting Engineers Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action for Damages / Debate on Relevancy (pre Proof)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Bracewell Stirling Architects are contractually liable for breaches by other consultants and contractors
  2. 2 Adequacy of site investigation and risk assessment for ground gas migration
  3. 3 Scope of contractual duty and recoverable losses against RPS Planning & Development Limited

Ratio Decidendi

Bracewell Stirling Architects are not contractually liable for breaches of contract by other consultants or contractors, as the relevant contractual provisions do not impose such liability; responsibility is limited to works carried out by Bracewell or their sub-consultants or contractors. The Council’s case against Bracewell is irrelevant and dismissed. The scope of RPS’s liability depends on whether it was engaged by the Council as owner or verifier; this requires inquiry. The case against Raeburn requires clarification but is not dismissed at this stage.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed against Bracewell Stirling Architects; proof before answer allowed against Raeburn Drilling and Geotechnical Limited and RPS Planning & Development Limited; no claim against Blyth and Blyth Consulting Engineers Limited.

Orders

  • Action dismissed in so far as directed against Bracewell Stirling Architects.
  • Council ordered to provide a note clarifying its case against Raeburn Drilling and Geotechnical Limited.