Outer House News Today

BTO solicitor Kieran Thrall and trainee solicitor Kate Ross explain a determination by the Outer House that notification of loss and expense claims is a condition precedent to entitlement and highlight its implications for the construction industry.

The Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal for the petitioner and appellant in Glasgow City Council v X, a case that considered the extent of the statutory duty of councils to provide suitable temporary homeless accommodation that meets the assessed needs of homeless households.

A commercial judge has held that a structural engineer hired for an Edinburgh building project could not be compelled to execute and deliver a collateral warranty in favour of the landowner over five years after the conclusion of a contract between the engineer and the project’s contractor in

A commercial judge has held that a structural engineer hired for an Edinburgh building project could not be compelled to execute and deliver a collateral warranty in favour of the landowner over five years after the conclusion of a contract between the engineer and the project’s contractor in

A Scottish court has upheld an adjudication that found an Amey joint venture should have been paid £1.8m over a delayed electrical substation project.

A lord ordinary has dismissed a personal injury action by an Aberdeen man who fell off the roof of a portacabin and suffered injuries resulting in tetraplegia after finding that his case under occupiers’ liability law was not made out. Pursuer John Davie suffered the injuries after he had gain

The Scottish Government will not appeal a court ruling backing Westminster’s decision to veto its highly controversial gender self-ID Bill.

Gender-confused kids in Scotland will still be allowed to take experimental puberty-blocking drugs, under proposed country-wide standards.

THE headline over last week’s big legal development was straightforward: in the Court of Session on Friday, Lady Haldane found in favour of the UK…

A lord ordinary has ruled that the assignee of a property development company had a sufficiently relevant case for a proof in an action in which he alleged a fellow director had dishonestly acquired a development site for his own company, resulting in the administration of the company they were both