28th April 2006, 02:17 PM
I think the confusion here arises from the fact that a project can have a long chain of contractual relationships. A given company (say, an archaeological consultancy) could be the Employer on one contract (say, with an archaeological unit) and a Contractor in another (say, with the developer who has commissioned them to get the archaeology dealt with). Preferably, they would avoid this situation by persuading the developer to employ the archaeological unit directly, while the consultancy firm provides a Consultant to manage the archaeological contract (but not to be a party to it).
However, if the consultancy firm does actually employ the archaeological Contractor, then they will be the Employer, and they will usually have a Consultant who is one of their own staff.
It is important to note here that the Consultant is still not a party to the contract; the parties will be his company (the Employer) and the archaeological unit (the Contractor).
In terms of insurance, my (non-expert) understanding is that there are few circumstances in which a Consultant would be individually liable.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
However, if the consultancy firm does actually employ the archaeological Contractor, then they will be the Employer, and they will usually have a Consultant who is one of their own staff.
It is important to note here that the Consultant is still not a party to the contract; the parties will be his company (the Employer) and the archaeological unit (the Contractor).
In terms of insurance, my (non-expert) understanding is that there are few circumstances in which a Consultant would be individually liable.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished