Scott Clair

Scott has an extensive experience of professional liability claims. He has been instructed by a broad range of professionals, and their insurers, but has particular experience of claims against solicitors and advocates. Scott also has experience of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution in respect of professional liability claims.

He is ranked as an “Up and Coming” individual in Professional Negligence in the Chambers 2026 directory.

Cases including:

• Cochrane v Harper Macleod LLP [2025] SC GLA 75; 2025 S.C.L.R. 660
  Professional negligence claim in which Scott appeared at a debate on the relevancy of the pursuer’s pleadings and, in particular, whether the terms of the solicitor defenders’ retainer excluded the provision of tax advice.
• Professional negligence claim against a firm of solicitors for failure to correctly identify the extent of the pursuers’ property on the sale of same, leading to the pursuers ostensibly conveying a plot of land that was in excess of that which they owned. This resulted in a claim against the pursuers by the purchaser, necessitating a subsequent claim against the solicitors.
• High value professional negligence claim by a firm of property developers against a firm of solicitors for advising them, in effect, to conclude missives for the sale of a plot of land in the knowledge that they were unable to comply with their contractual obligations to the purchasers to provide an architect’s certificate. This resulted in a claim against the pursuers by the purchasers, necessitating a subsequent claim against the solicitors. The case was complicated by the fact that the firm of solicitors had subsequently been dissolved and so the competency of proceeding against their insurer required to be considered.
• Professional negligence claim against an advocate in respect of the conduct of a personal injuries action.

Scott is regularly instructed in professional regulatory matters, both for regulators and professionals. He has experience of appearing before regulatory tribunals. As well as conducting regulatory proceedings, Scott advises on a range of regulatory issues.

He is a member of the Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers and is ranked as an “Up and Coming” individual in Professional Discipline in the Chambers 2026 directory.

Nandhra, Appellant [2026] CSIH 11
Scott acted as sole counsel for the three successful respondent health boards in this regulatory appeal against a decision and associated order of the – rarely constituted – NHS Tribunal. In refusing the appeal, the Inner House held that the NHS Tribunal was entitled to find that the appellant was an unsuitable person to continue to be listed in the dental lists maintained by the respective health boards, given he lacked integrity in that he had in effect sought to demobilise dental services and profit from an emergency payment scheme introduced by the Scottish Government that was intended to remobilise those services during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Nursing and Midwifery Council v Thomas and Faseha, August 2024
Eight-day regulatory hearing before the Nursing and Midwifery Council, presenting the case on behalf of the NMC. Both registrants had been charged with several charges amounting to misconduct. Following the hearing, the panel found one of the registrants to have been guilty of misconduct and impaired, imposing a conditions of practice order for a period of 12 months.

Nursing and Midwifery Council v Onwuasoanya, May 2024
13-day regulatory hearing before the Nursing and Midwifery Council, presenting the case on behalf of the NMC. The registrant had been charged with several charges amounting to misconduct. Following the hearing, the panel found the registrant to have been guilty of misconduct and impaired, imposing a suspension order for a period of six months with a review thereafter.

Nursing and Midwifery Council v Wood, October 2023
18-day regulatory hearing before the Nursing and Midwifery Council, presenting the case on behalf of the NMC. The registrant had been charged with several charges amounting to misconduct. Following the hearing, the panel found the registrant to have been impaired, imposing a striking-off order.

Nursing and Midwifery Council v Atillo, April 2023
Eight-day regulatory hearing before the Nursing and Midwifery Council, presenting the case on behalf of the NMC. The registrant had been charged with several charges amounting to misconduct. Following the hearing, the panel found the registrant to have been impaired, imposing a striking-off order.

Nursing and Midwifery Council v Kerrigan, January 2023
Five-day regulatory hearing before the Nursing and Midwifery Council, presenting the case on behalf of the NMC. The registrant had been charged with impairment for health reasons. Following the hearing, the panel found the registrant to have been impaired, imposing a suspension order for a period of nine months.

Summary application against a decision of the Scottish Ministers (Disclosure Scotland) to list a teacher on the vulnerable adults’ and children’s lists, thereby prohibiting her from carrying out any work with vulnerable adults or children, following proceedings before the General Teaching Council for Scotland (‘GTCS’) and her removal from the roll of teachers, involving complex questions of whether the decision was a disproportionate interference with the teacher’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Opinion on the prospects of a successful judicial review in respect of a decision to refer a member of the General Teaching Council for Scotland to the GTCS’ own internal disciplinary process, involving complex questions of when such a challenge would be premature.

Opinion on preparations for a substantive hearing before the General Dental Council on behalf of one of their members, who had been referred in respect that he had been convicted of a criminal offence. Including advising in relation to evidence required from various witnesses in relation to impairment and the legal interpretation of one of the panel’s interim orders, regarding the meaning of “carrying on the business of dentistry” within the meaning of the Dentists Act 1984.

Scott has a significant practice in clinical liability in Scotland, particularly for defenders. He is routinely instructed by the NHS and medical defence unions in complex and high value claims. He is often instructed alone even where the other party is represented by Senior Counsel.

Cases including:

Cox v Optimax Clinics Ltd and others [2026] SC GLA 43
Scott appeared for one of two successful defenders in this preliminary proof on the limitation of a clinical negligence action.

Taylor v Fife Health Board [2025] CSOH 103
Scott appeared as junior counsel in this 12-day proof in the Court of Session on behalf a Scottish health board in a complex clinical negligence action relating to surgery to remove the pursuer’s cancerous kidney, involving complex questions of causation and quantum.

Gallagher v Clement [2025] SC EDIN 35
Dental negligence proof in which Scott was instructed as sole counsel for the successful clinician, who was represented by a dental defence union.

Downie v Fife Health Board [2025] SC EDIN 11
Clinical negligence proof in which Scott was instructed as junior counsel for the pursuer.

Simpson v Dumfries and Galloway Health Board [2025] SAC (Civ) 12; 2025 S.C. (SAC) 75
Fatal claim for clinical negligence by relatives of a man who committed suicide shortly after an assessment by employees of the defender health board. The case was prima facie time-barred and proceeded to a proof on limitation and the pursuers’ plea to have the court extend the limitation period in the event it was found to be time-barred. Scott successfully represented the defender health board at proof. Following the proof, the court held in favour of the health board. The sheriff’s decision was subsequently appealed and Scott successfully represented the health board as sole counsel against the pursuers, who were represented by both senior and junior counsel in the appeal.

• Clinical negligence claim for delay in diagnosis against multiple defender health boards, leading to complex condition causing catastrophic disability known as Cauda Equina Syndrome. The case was complex in relation to causation given the complexity of the anatomy and pathology of the condition; and in respect of apportionment, given there were multiple defenders.
• Multiple high value, complex clinical negligence claims for negligent delivery, leading to Cerebral Palsy and lifelong disability, involving complex medical evidence and a range of expert reports from matters including physical and psychiatric health to care, accommodation and statistical evidence in relation to life expectancy.
• Complex clinical negligence claim for negligent dental treatment, resulting in Functional Neurological Disorder (‘FND’). The action was complex in that FND is not a generally well understood condition, sitting at the interface between neurology and psychiatry. It was further complicated in respect of causation by the fact that the pursuer had a number of pre-disposing factors to the condition.

Scott has acted in commercial litigation claims throughout his career. He has experience of appearing unled in higher value and/or complex claims.

Soofi v Santander UK Plc [2024] SAC (Civ) 44; 2025 S.L.T. (SAC) 1; 2025 S.C.L.R. 60
Action for recall of an order for repossession in favour of a commercial lender by the spouse of the executor of a deceased debtor. The action concerned the novel question of whether the spouse of an executor is legally entitled to seek recall in such circumstances, as opposed to the spouse of a living debtor, and questions of construction of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 and the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. The pursuer was unsuccessful at first instance and so appealed to the Sheriff Appeal Court, where the appeal was dismissed.

Partnership dispute, concerning the former partnership between the pursuer and the defender. The case concerned complex provisions of partnership and executry law. The pursuer raised proceedings for count, reckoning and payment, in which the pursuer sought (i) to establish that the defender had an obligation to account to him as executor for his late father, as a partner in the dissolved firm; and (ii) that a fair accounting had been given to the deceased.

An action to obtain an urgent interim interdict in respect of an eviction in circumstances where the defender had reached an agreement with the pursuer that a previously obtained court decree would not be enforced leading to the pursuer’s eviction prior to a certain date, in order to permit the pursuer time to obtain the necessary funds to purchase the property in question. The case proceeded to an urgent, out of hours hearing, before the court at which the order was successfully obtained. The action subsequently resolved extrajudicially.

Since 2024, Scott has been Standing Junior Counsel to the Advocate General for Scotland (UK Government). In that capacity, he can be called upon to advise on and represent the UK Government in a number of matters before the courts in Scotland, and has done so in relation to matters such as immigration law and director’s disqualification proceedings. He also acts for petitioners and other public respondents.

He is ranked as a “Rising Star” in Administrative & Public Law in the Legal 500 2026 directory.

Cases including:

G, Applicant [2025] SAC (Civ) 23; 2026 S.C. (S.A.C.) 35; 2025 S.L.T. (SAC) 103; 2025 S.C.L.R. 588
Amicus curiae in an undefended sensitive and important appeal to the Sheriff Appeal Court in respect of a sheriff’s decision to refuse, unopposed, a summary application to disinter a body and reinter the deceased abroad. The case is thought to be the first time that the Scottish courts have considered the interaction of the ancient Scots common law relating to disinterment of human remains and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

• Defence of ‘fresh claims’ immigration judicial review by a Chinese national who claimed that she would be persecuted on her return to China on account of her LGBT+ identity. Instructed in capacity as Standing Junior Counsel to the UK Government.
• Emergency, out of hours petition by a Scottish health board for interim interdict temporarily depriving a parent of the ability to visit her severely disabled child and to provide any form of purported medical care or treatment to her sick child within a children’s hospital, in circumstances where there was evidence that the parent was administering purported medical care and treatments which had not been prescribed and which were causing harm to the child. The petition was raised in extreme urgency (proceeding to a hearing within hours of instruction) against the background of social work involvement, though the local authority had declined to seek such an order.
• Petition for judicial review by an interested party of a decision of the health board to allow an extension to an application to open a pharmacy, in circumstances where the competency of such a power was disputed. This resulted in a lengthy interim orders hearing at which the petitioner sought interim interdict and suspension of the decision in question.
• Provision of advice to a large local authority in relation to claims on behalf of a number of employees. The instruction related to a number of opinions in relation to complex questions of whether the claims – presented under both the UK GDPR and the Human Rights Act 1998 – were de minimis, under reference to whether certain relevant jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union remained authoritative in the UK post-Brexit; and whether the nature of the information disclosed was sufficient to engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Summary application against a decision of the Scottish Ministers (Disclosure Scotland) to list a teacher on the vulnerable adults’ and children’s lists, thereby prohibiting her from carrying out any work with vulnerable adults or children, following proceedings before the General Teaching Council for Scotland (‘GTCS’) and her removal from the roll of teachers, involving complex questions of whether the decision was a disproportionate interference with the teacher’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

As part of his broader public law practice, Scott has particular experience of advising on human rights issues (both in the context of litigation and in a purely advisory context). He has experience of advising public bodies on Convention-compliance issues.

Cases including:

G, Applicant [2025] SAC (Civ) 23; 2026 S.C. (S.A.C.) 35; 2025 S.L.T. (SAC) 103; 2025 S.C.L.R. 588

Amicus curiae in an undefended sensitive and important appeal to the Sheriff Appeal Court in respect of a sheriff’s decision to refuse, unopposed, a summary application to disinter a body and reinter the deceased abroad. The case is thought to be the first time that the Scottish courts have considered the interaction of the ancient Scots common law relating to disinterment of human remains and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

• Defence of ‘fresh claims’ immigration judicial review by a Chinese national who claimed that she would be persecuted on her return to China on account of her LGBT+ identity. Instructed in capacity as Standing Junior Counsel to the UK Government.
• Emergency, out of hours petition by a Scottish health board for interim interdict temporarily depriving a parent of the ability to visit her severely disabled child and to provide any form of purported medical care or treatment to her sick child within a children’s hospital, in circumstances where there was evidence that the parent was administering purported medical care and treatments which had not been prescribed and which were causing harm to the child. The petition was raised in extreme urgency (proceeding to a hearing within hours of instruction) against the background of social work involvement, though the local authority had declined to seek such an order.
• Petition for judicial review by an interested party of a decision of the health board to allow an extension to an application to open a pharmacy, in circumstances where the competency of such a power was disputed. This resulted in a lengthy interim orders hearing at which the petitioner sought interim interdict and suspension of the decision in question.
• Provision of advice to a large local authority in relation to claims on behalf of a number of employees. The instruction related to a number of opinions in relation to complex questions of whether the claims – presented under both the UK GDPR and the Human Rights Act 1998 – were de minimis, under reference to whether certain relevant jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union remained authoritative in the UK post-Brexit; and whether the nature of the information disclosed was sufficient to engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Summary application against a decision of the Scottish Ministers (Disclosure Scotland) to list a teacher on the vulnerable adults’ and children’s lists, thereby prohibiting her from carrying out any work with vulnerable adults or children, following proceedings before the General Teaching Council for Scotland (‘GTCS’) and her removal from the roll of teachers, involving complex questions of whether the decision was a disproportionate interference with the teacher’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Provision of advice in relation to a potential ‘failure to remove’ claim against a local authority in respect of historic child abuse due to a failure by the local authority to remove the pursuer from the care of her mother; concerning complex questions of the assumption of responsibility by the local authority in question.

Scott has experience of appearing, both led and unled, in a number of high profile inquiries in recent years. He represented Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board in a fatal accident inquiry in relation to the deaths of three babies in 2024. He has also carried out work as an ad hoc junior counsel to the Scottish Hospitals Inquiry. He regularly appears in Fatal Accident Inquiries.

FAI into the death of Leo Lamont and others [2025] FAI 15
15-day discretionary fatal accident inquiry (as part of three conjoined FAIs) into the tragic death of a baby boy, involving multiple families and health boards and the leading of evidence from multiple witnesses. Involved great sensitivity given the tragic nature of the three baby deaths.

FAI into the death of John Barnes [2024] FAI 48
Mandatory fatal accident inquiry into the death of a prisoner, whilst in custody. Involved great degree of cooperation with other parties and the assimilation of a great degree of medical evidence into a joint minute.

Further cases, including:

• Scott acted as sole junior counsel, together with senior counsel, on behalf of five separate Scottish health boards in Phase 9 of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, which was concerned with the abuse of children with long term health conditions in residential healthcare establishments. This role entailed considering a significant volume of material and witness evidence relating to alleged abuse which took place within over 10 different hospitals over a number of decades, and the preparation of opening and closing submissions.
• Ad hocjunior counsel to the Scottish Hospitals Inquiry, assisting Counsel to the Inquiry and the Chair in the preparation of several lengthy documents and chronologies, by assimilating and summarising 20 years’ worth of correspondence and evidence, in preparation for various public hearings.

Scott has acted in personal injury claims throughout his career. He has experience of appearing unled in higher value and/or complex claims.

Cases including:

Bowers v Aviva Insurance [2026] SAC (Civ) 7; 2026 S.L.T. (SAC) 15
Scott appeared as sole counsel for the appellant in this appeal to the Sheriff Appeal Court which concerned complex questions of statutory interpretation, and particularly whether actions worth less than £5,000 raised in the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court are automatically ‘ordinary’ actions and therefore subject to a higher expenses regime than would ordinarily be the case.

• Scott acted for the successful pursuer in a road traffic accident case which proceeded to a three day proof in Glasgow Sheriff Court. Following proof, the court found in favour of the pursuer and made no deduction for any contributory negligence, despite the defenders having taken a plea in relation to same.
• Historic child abuse claim, raising complex questions of factual causation and the correct legal approach to apportioning damages in cases where there is a divisible psychiatric injury.
• Case concerning a series of serious assaults by a pupil upon a teacher in a special school. Case raised against the relevant local authority for failing to take steps which would have kept the teacher safe.
• Personal injury claim by an employee of the relevant health board in respect of an accident at work. Complex questions of law in relation to the independence and impartiality of the pursuer’s expert witness, who was also an employee of the defender health board.
• Mesothelioma case brought by employee of the defender health board in respect of historic exposure to asbestos, including a claim for provisional damages.
• Claim for damages for an assault carried out on the pursuer by the door staff of a nightclub. Involving complex investigations and the possibility of related court action to determine the correct defender and holder of the relevant policy of insurance, given the door staff were the employees of a company to whom the nightclub owners had subcontracted their security.
• Accident at work claim by pursuer who suffered hearing and psychological injury following the explosion next to him of the tyre of a heavy goods truck in the course of his employment.

Scott has acted in a number of private client litigations throughout his career.

Gray v Gray’s Executors Nominate [2026] SAC (Civ) 3; 2026 S.C.L.R. 87
Scott appeared as sole counsel for the successful appellant in an appeal before the Sheriff Appeal Court relating to an action for count, reckoning and payment, which raised questions relating to the circumstances in which a disappointed beneficiary could raise an action against executors in respect of their intromissions with the estate of a deceased person in their capacity as attorneys during the deceased’s lifetime.

Soofi v Santander UK Plc [2024] SAC (Civ) 44; 2025 S.L.T. (SAC) 1; 2025 S.C.L.R. 60
Action for recall of an order for repossession in favour of a commercial lender by the spouse of the executor of a deceased debtor. The action concerned the novel question of whether the spouse of an executor is legally entitled to seek recall in such circumstances, as opposed to the spouse of a living debtor, and questions of construction of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 and the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. The pursuer was unsuccessful at first instance and so appealed to the Sheriff Appeal Court, where the appeal was dismissed.

Cases including:

• Acting on behalf of the pursuer in a neighbour dispute concerning two adjoining properties. The defender was alleged to have used his property in such a way as to constitute a nuisance in law. The pursuer obtained an interim interdict at the outset of the case, preventing the defender from carrying out further work until further orders of court. The defender proceeded to breach the order, which resulted in a contempt proof, in which the pursuer was successful. It was subsequently appealed, unsuccessfully, by the defender. Scott represented the pursuer in both the first instance and appellate proceedings.
• Acting on behalf of the pursuer in a partnership dispute, concerning a former familial partnership. The case concerns complex provisions of partnership and executry law. The pursuer has raised proceedings for count, reckoning and payment, in which the pursuer seeks (i) to establish that the defender has an obligation to account to him as executor for his late father, as a partner in the dissolved firm; and (ii) that a fair accounting had been given to the deceased.
• Acting on behalf of the pursuers in a high value action for damages for defective new build property by owners against developers. The action is the culmination of a long conciliation process and concerns questions of contractual interpretation and the handling of significant expert evidence and technical data from a number of experts.
• Acting on behalf of the pursuer in an action to obtain an urgent interim interdict in respect of an eviction in circumstances where the defender had reached an agreement with the pursuer that a previously obtained court decree would not be enforced leading to the pursuer’s eviction prior to a certain future date in order to permit the pursuer time to obtain the necessary funds to purchase the property in question. The case proceeded to an urgent, out of hours hearing, before the court at which the order was successfully obtained.