Gavin Henderson

Partner

gavin.henderson@simpmar.com

0131 525 8587

0131 525 8653

Albany House, 58 Albany St, Edinburgh, EH1 3QR

Download vCard

A dual-qualified lawyer and "a rising star in Professional Negligence" - Chambers 2011.

Gavin is a talented litigator, representing his clients in professional negligence and commercial matters. He successfully defends accountants, surveyors, insurance brokers and IT consultants against claims. He also acts in the growing number of cases against equestrian professionals. A dual-qualified lawyer, Gavin advises clients on both sides of the border regarding all aspects of English Litigation.

Gavin enjoys rowing and his perfect Sunday morning activity is pushing his daughter around the park in her pram.    

Career

Qualified England 2002, Scotland 2004, joined Simpson & Marwick 2004, assumed Partner 2008.

Gavin is a regular contributor of articles to Greens Reparation Bulletin.

Co-editor of Simpson & Marwick Information Bulletin (SMIB) and member of the IT Committee, Simpson & Marwick.

A member of The Law Society of Scotland and The Law Society of England.

Recent notable work includes:

Albert Barlett & Sons (Airdrie) Limited v Gilchrist & Lynn Limited and Others [2009] CSOH 125. Gavin acted for one of the successful third parties in this claim. The claimant sought damages based upon an overcladding solution. The judge took the view that a successful litigant cannot insist upon damages measured on the basis of an unreasonably expensive or grossly disproportionate remedial scheme, and he remains under a duty to mitigate his loss. In the circumstances the judge accepted that the remedial solution suggested by the defender and third parties was appropriate.

Lesley Bothwell v Messrs D. M. Hall and Others [2009] CSOH 24. Gavin successfully defended the claim at Proof.  The claimant alleged that the defender had been negligent in their valuation of a nursery for the purposes of re-development.  While there was some convergence between the experts giving evidence as to what best practice was the judge was satisfied that the surveyor had exercised appropriate professional judgment, and there had not been a failure on the part of the defender to act with ordinary care.

Specialisms