Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
The Scottish Court of Session, Inner House upheld a first instance decision that a lead consultant was not liable for work carried out by third party consultants appointed directly by a local authority. Jonathan Spencer (Managing Associate) and David Fitzpatrick (Associate) of Simmons & Simmons consider the ruling.
Midlothian Council v Bracewell Stirling Architects  CSIH 21
While this is a Scottish decision (and is, therefore, only persuasive rather than legally binding in England and Wales), it reinforces that when presented with competing contractual interpretations, the UK courts will consider the broader nexus of
the parties’ relationship to arrive at a conclusion.
On appeal, the court agreed with the decision at first instance that to hold Bracewell liable for a breach of contract by any of the other consultants would be a ‘striking departure from ordinary legal principle’ and ‘would
not accord with usual commercial practice’.The court acknowledged that as Bracewell had been appointed as lead consultant, it was responsible for the overall co-ordination of the design works—however, this was not to be construed as an acceptance of liability for anything that might
ultimately go wrong with the design, no matter its cause.
Court: Court of Session, Inner House
Judges: Lords Carloway, Menzies and Drummond Young
Date of judgment: 27 March 2018
0330 161 1234