Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 12 AUGUST 2013

A Sad, But Salutary Lesson

In a recent case, the court had to consider whether in response to an application for disclosure, correspondence with Knowles Ltd, a claims consultancy that employed personnel with legal qualifications and which had been retained by the defendants to provide 'contractual and adjudication advice' was covered by legal professional or legal advice privilege.

United KingdomReal Estate and Construction
Philip Boulding KC MA LL.B (Cantab)
Philip Boulding KC MA LL.B (Cantab)

The case of Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Mackay in the Technology and Construction Court represents a sad, but salutary lesson in how not to organise and progress an expensive, substantial and complicated construction project.

Background

The dispute had already raised issues of interest to the legal profession.

In Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Mackay [2012] EWHC 649 TCC the court had to consider whether in response to an application for disclosure, correspondence with Knowles Ltd, a claims consultancy that employed personnel with legal qualifications and which had been retained by the defendants to provide 'contractual and adjudication advice' was covered by legal professional or legal advice privilege.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from