Jonathan Broome

• Greater Glasgow Health Board v Multiplex [2026] CSIH 16; 2026 SLT 433. Claim re cladding in the atrium of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow. Various time bar issues, including the requirements for making out a case of induced error in terms of s6(4) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 and whether, notwithstanding the cladding having been visible since construction completion, the loss, injury or damage was properly to be characterised as latent damage, so as to make s11(3) of the 1973 Act applicable.
• Dragados v Port of Aberdeen [2025] CSOH 37. Considered the circumstances in which a contractual indemnity became operative in an agreement related to the main contract for the expansion of Aberdeen harbour.
• Caledonian Water Alliance v Electrosteel [2025] CSIH 21; 2025 SLT 1142. Construction of a contract in a battle of the forms involving 60 separate contracts in the context of wider framework arrangements for infrastructure projects, including consideration of how battle of the forms considerations interact with wider framework arrangements and of when an ‘offer and acceptance’ approach might not apply.
• Atalian Servest AMK v BW [2023] CSIH 18; 2023 SLT 385. Cross actions in relation to enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision re work at Lord’s Cricket Ground. Considered the relationship between an abortive first adjudication and a full second adjudication and their interaction with a contractual provision on the final and binding nature of a final account and the parties’ choices on available dispute resolution procedures.
• D McLaughlin v East Ayrshire Council [2021] CSOH 122; 201 Con LR 168. Considered the relationship between contract provisions on dispute resolution and on conclusivity of final certificates in the context of a widely used standard form contract.
• Scottish Hospitals Inquiry. Junior counsel for a core participant in the Inquiry into the planning, design, construction, commissioning and, where appropriate, maintenance of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital Campus, Glasgow and the Royal Hospital for Children and Young People and Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Edinburgh.
• Greater Glasgow Health Board v Multiplex & Others [2021] CSOH 115; 2022 SLT 1385; 199 Con LR 209. Action for damages said to have been incurred due to breaches of obligation by the design and build contractors and members of the professional team in the design and construction of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital Campus, Glasgow. Particular issues of competency of proceedings and prescription of obligations, absent any adjudication proceedings.
• Loretto Housing Association v Cruden & Others [2019] CSOH 78. Whether or not loss caused by a breach of obligation occurs on, and time bar starts to run from, the date of a payment certified for payment under a building contract.
• Edinburgh Tram Inquiry. Sole counsel for a core participant in the Inquiry to establish why the Edinburgh Tram project incurred delays, cost more than originally budgeted and, through reductions in scope, delivered significantly less than projected.
• Martifer UK v Lend Lease [2016] CSOH 98; [2016] CSOH 66; [2015] CSOH 81. Multiple aspect dispute between the main contractor and a sub-contractor in relation to the construction of the steelwork for The Hydro Arena, Glasgow. Concerned issues of contract construction and programming, among other matters.
• Stewart Milne Westhill v Halliday Fraser Munro [2016] CSOH 76. Action for damages said to have been incurred due to architect’s professional negligence. Involved a time bar defence, where the allegedly negligent design had been in place, and purported remedial works had been carried out, more than 5 years before the action was raised.
• Royal Bank of Scotland v Halcrow Waterman [2013] CSOH 173. Time bar of an obligation to make reparation regarding deflection of concrete slabs in an office building, where cracking existed more than 5 years before the action was raised. Considered what awareness the exercise of reasonable diligence would have given rise to, in terms of the relevant statutory provision. Also considered the contractual construction of a net contribution clause.
• Whyte and Mackay v Blyth & Blyth [2013] CSOH 54. Applicability of the European Convention of Human Rights to the process of construction adjudication. Also considered severability of adjudicators’ decisions.
• J & A Construction v Windex [2013] CSOH 170. Enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision. Considered the court’s equitable power to allow balancing of accounts in bankruptcy notwithstanding an adjudicator’s award.
• Martin & Co, Petrs [2013] CSOH 25. Competence of, and considerations to apply in making, an interim award of expenses in a specific monetary amount, subsequent to the granting of an earlier general award of expenses. To allow diligence to be done in execution pending taxation of the prior general award.
• Manchester Associated Mills v Mitchells & Butler [2013] CSOH 2; 2013 SCLR 440; [2013] 4EG 107(CS). Legal error and serious irregularity appeals under the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010.
• Pihl v Ramboll [2012] CSOH 139. Enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision in face of breach of natural justice and unintelligibility/inadequacy of reasons challenges. Also considered the appropriateness of granting summary decree (judgment) in enforcing adjudicators’ decisions.

• Chambers UK Bar – Recommended as a leading junior in Constructionand in Professional Negligence

Quotes

• ‘He is one of the best in this area – he gets on with clients, he explains things very clearly and he is always calm and methodical’. ‘He responds quickly in a user-friendly way, has a good grasp of the law and knows how to be concise’. (Chambers UK 2020)
• ‘He’s particularly good because he was a solicitor for so long. He’s very good at the technical side and the detail’. ‘He’s approachable and easy to work with and he understands clients’ needs’. (Chambers UK 2018)
• ‘Extremely switched-on, with a keen eye for detail and considerable construction expertise’. ‘Brilliant legal mind, very thorough and able to pick up on the smallest of details’. ‘Bright, approachable and alive to a client’s commercial drivers’. (Chambers UK 2017)
• ‘He is very experienced and good with clients’. ‘He provides very sound advice’. ‘He’s detailed, thorough, helpful and exceptionally busy – a sign of someone who’s well regarded’. (Chambers UK 2016)
• ‘He’s incredibly bright and enthusiastic. He’s good on tactics, and his specialist area is construction and he knows it inside out’. (Chambers UK 2015)

In the years immediately prior to joining the Bar, Jonathan was ranked as a Band 1 solicitor in Construction by Chambers UK. Specific comments include:

• ‘[His] advice is invaluable in forming my decision’. (Chambers UK 2012)
• ‘A key player who knows his stuff inside out’. (Chambers UK 2011)
• ‘He’s one of the most intelligent lawyers I’ve come across. He’s got an edge when it comes to insolvency’. (Chambers UK 2008)