- A pending civil lawsuit does not automatically exclude LSH from doing business with the public sector
- But the Procurement Act allows authorities to consider professional misconduct which calls a supplier’s integrity into question
- The important issue is therefore not that Lord Street exists, according to an industry insider – but what a court might eventually find
- Today, Expose.News takes a deep dive into the extraordinary seven-year-long legal battle
- And reveals how a finding in one jurisdiction may affect the business of a party in another
The existence of the £90 million Lord Street case does not, by itself, mean that the Skipton Building Society-owned property consultant Lambert Smith Hampton is barred from winning public contracts, according to an expert.
LSH remains a successful supplier to a large number of UK local authorities, the NHS and schools while defending Sondica Group Incorporated’s claim in the Isle of Man.
Nothing in the Procurement Act requires suppliers to declare every piece of pending civil litigation or treat every unresolved and ongoing lawsuit as misconduct.
But the Lord Street dispute could become a major reputational flashpoint if the High Court makes adverse findings about LSH’s professional conduct.
The Procurement Act allows public bodies to exclude suppliers for serious professional misconduct where their integrity is called into question.
That can include impropriety, serious professional or ethical breaches, or adverse court or regulatory findings.
No such finding has yet been made against LSH in the Sondica litigation.
But later this week the case moves another step towards trial – bringing the prospect of judicial scrutiny of those allegations ever closer.
On Friday October 9th they will send legal arguments to the judge, who will then decide whether a mini-trial on technical points of law is necessary.
But a new court ruling could change everything.
One property specialist told Expose.News:
“If the judge were to criticise professional independence, integrity or compliance with professional standards, this would cease to be merely an old, unresolved dispute.
“It would become a current judicial finding – and one which public bodies may have to confront when considering future appointments.”
Though LSH denies Sondica’s case, the surveyor’s public-sector exposure remains substantial.
The consultancy is listed across six core lots of the UK Government Commercial Agency’s Estate Management Services 2 framework, available to central government, health, councils and blue-light organisations.
Homes England has also appointed LSH to its new four-year property professional framework.
And Birmingham City Council has just awarded the firm another £500,000 mandate to perform independent financial-viability assessments for planning cases, potentially including expert-witness work.
Our expert told our reporters that is why the next hearing matters well beyond the courtroom.
LSH wants the court to decide first whether it owed Sondica any duty of care.
A ruling in its favour could provide an early exit from the damages claim and spare it the cost and scrutiny of a full trial.
Sondica argues there is no clean legal shortcut.
It says the duty question is bound up with the facts of what LSH was asked to do, the advice it gave and how its assessment of Sondica changed.
Carving that issue out now, it says, would simply split the case in two while leaving the most important factual questions unresolved.
Sondica alleges LSH first favoured its bid before changing position following disputed Isle of Man Government intervention.
No court has found professional misconduct, and even a settlement would not necessarily constitute an admission.
But the real risk for LSH is what happens if a court eventually makes adverse findings – particularly while the firm is competing for valuable public-sector work and framework appointments across the UK.
ENDS
