R (Hersi & Co) v Lord Chancellor (2017) EWHC 2667 (TCC) is concerned with the defendant’s conduct of a public procurement exercise for the award of contracts to provide publicly-funded legal services relating to immigration and asylum and mental health work.

As part of the tender, there were 7 particular questions, grouped under the heading ‘Selection Criteria’, which all applicants were required to answer. The claimant answered the first three, but then left blank the answers to Questions 4, 5, 6 and 7. In consequence, the defendant awarded the claimant no points for its answers to those questions and the claimant’s tender failed to gain the required points to justify the award of a contract. The claimant now argues, either that the defendant should have sought clarification of their non-answers, and/or that the answers to the questions were plain from other parts of the claimant’s tender and should have been scored accordingly. In addition, the claimant has a wider case in which it seeks to compare the defendant’s treatment of numerous other applicants on other aspects of their tenders, so as to allege inequality of treatment. Read more »

The Judgment of Coulson J in Cemex v Network Rail [2017] EWHC 2392 (TCC) is of interest on a number of aspects of procurement challenges.  On applications for an extension of time to serve the Particulars of Claim the Judge said:- Read more »

The best possible service to the public, without disruption, and with minimal risk to service recipients, is a factor in favour of allowing a public contract award to be implemented. In Sysmex (UK) Ltd v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust [2017] EWHC 1824 (TCC) Coulson J was concerned with a procurement challenge to the Trust’s award of a managed services contract (“the MSC”) in respect of pathology services. Read more »

Agoreyo v Lambeth LBC (2017) EWHC (2019) QB reaffirms that suspension ( of a teacher ) is not a ” neutral act ” ( para 24 ) and should not be considered a routine response to the need for an investigation ( para 27 ) and that alternatives must be considered ( para 29 ).

In Dudley MBC v Willetts, UKEAT/0334/16/JOJ, the President of the EAT, Simler J, held that payment for voluntary overtime which is regularly worked is normal remuneration for the purposes of calculating holiday pay notwithstanding that there is no obligation in the employment contract itself to perform the work.

In Sysmex (UK) Ltd v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (2017) EWHC 1824 (TCC) Coulson J reiterated the principles of law applicable to lifting the automatic suspension of a contracting authority’s ability to enter into a contract covered by the public procurement regime, as follows:- Read more »

In Case T-392/15, European Dynamics v European Union Agency for Railways, the applicants alleged that the Agency had failed to fulfil its obligations to state reasons for its decision.  The applicants’ case was that the rejection decision, and the Report of the Evaluation Committee leading to that decision, were vitiated by a failure to give reasons why the applicants’ tenders were abnormally low tenders (“ALTs”). The General Court dealt with the linked issues of the scope of the duty of a contracting authority to state reasons and the scope of the rules governing ALTs. Read more »

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 applies not only in favour of consumers but also “between contracting parties when one of them deals … on the other’s written standard terms of business”: Section 3. What is meant by “deals … on the other’s written standard terms of business”?  That was the main issue in African Export-Import Bank v Shebah Exploration & Production Company Limited (2017) EWCA Civ 845.  Longmore LJ gave guidance as to the correct approach.  He observed that before the Act can be held to apply and require an inquiry into the reasonableness of any particular term, the party relying on the Act must establish (the onus of proof being on that party) that:- Read more »

In yet another Alstom Transport UK Limited v London Underground Ltd (2017) EWHC 1521 (TCC) the Defendants applied to lift an automatic suspension on contract making imposed by the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006.

The present dispute arose out of a procurement for the provision of AC traction motors for the Defendants’ fleet of Central Line trains. The outcome of the procurement was that the Defendants decided that Bombardier should be the winning bidder, with Alstom coming second. By these proceedings Alstom challenged the validity of the procurement and its outcome. It opposed the lifting of the automatic suspension. Read more »

In Alstom Transport UK Limited v London Underground Limited and Transport for London (2017) EWHC 1406 (TCC) the principal issue was whether the Court should hear an application for specific disclosure before the application to lift the suspension. Coulson J concluded that it was appropriate for the application for specific disclosure to be heard in advance of the application to lift the suspension. Read more »