MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL, RECLAIMING MOTION BY AGAINST BRACEWELL STIRLING ARCHITECTS [2018] ScotCS CSIH_21 (26 March 2018)

MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL, RECLAIMING MOTION BY AGAINST BRACEWELL STIRLING ARCHITECTS [2018] ScotCS CSIH_21 (26 March 2018)

The contract, properly construed, did not impose liability on the first defenders for the acts or omissions of other consultants or contractors appointed by the pursuers, including work done before the first defenders' appointment. The first defenders' responsibility was limited to their own work and that of their sub-consultants, and only to the extent of using reasonable skill and care. Clause 22.2 specifically excluded liability for services provided by other parties appointed by the Council, except for a residual duty to warn the Council of concerns about their performance.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSIH_21
Parties
Pursuers and Reclaimers: Midlothian Council; First Defenders and Respondents: Bracewell Stirling Architects
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Commercial Action / Inner House, Court of Session, Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the commercial judge adhered to.
Legal Topics
Contractual Interpretation, Consultant Liability, Professional Negligence, Construction Contracts
Contract Law Construction Law Contractual Interpretation Consultant Liability Professional Negligence Construction Contracts

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midlothian Council

Pursuers and Reclaimers

Bracewell Stirling Architects

First Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Commercial Action / Inner House, Court of Session, Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lead consultant (first defenders) is contractually liable for the acts and omissions of other consultants or contractors appointed by the pursuers, including work done before the consultant's appointment.

Ratio Decidendi

The contract, properly construed, did not impose liability on the first defenders for the acts or omissions of other consultants or contractors appointed by the pursuers, including work done before the first defenders' appointment. The first defenders' responsibility was limited to their own work and that of their sub-consultants, and only to the extent of using reasonable skill and care. Clause 22.2 specifically excluded liability for services provided by other parties appointed by the Council, except for a residual duty to warn the Council of concerns about their performance.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the commercial judge adhered to.

Orders

  • Action against the first defenders dismissed.