Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Clin [2016] EWHC 357 (TCC) concerned a contract for the demolition, refurbishment and reconstruction of a property to form a single residence. Whilst the works were underway, the local planning authority, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, wrote to the parties stating that the extent of the demolition was such that conservation area consent was required.  Edwards-Stuart J held that a term should be implied into the contract that the owner would provide the authority with the information its planning officers required in order to process the application for consent, but not a term that consent should be obtained. This was not within the owner’s control.

The Judge said:-

“54.    The reasonable man in the position of the parties would, in my view, have in mind that, in general, a person who wishes to develop his land will know either that he is likely to need planning permission or, in the case of a residential development, that he must satisfy himself that the development proposed is exempt from the requirement for planning permission. The same applies to conservation area consent where the property is in a conservation area.

55. In principle, planning permission needs to be obtained in advance: it can be obtained retrospectively, but this is obviously risky. But even when applied for well in advance, everyone knows that planning permission cannot be taken for granted. For example, the prospects of planning permission being given may depend to a large extent on the attitude of owners of neighbouring properties. Similar considerations may apply to conservation area consent.
56. In this case it seems to me to be obvious that the parties must have intended that someone should have the responsibility for applying for planning permission. This is not a case where, because nothing is said expressly in the contract, the parties could have intended that nothing should happen about planning permission: planning permission had to be obtained in order for the development to go ahead. In addition, it seems to me that it would be equally obvious to an informed bystander that the party best placed to obtain planning permission is the employer, not least because he is the party who knows well in advance what he wants to do. The contractor does not find that out until he is invited to tender, by which time it may be too late for planning permission or conservation area consent to be obtained in time. Any reasonable person would know that a failure to make a timely application for the necessary permission or consent might well result in delay (unless of course the contractor has indicated that is prepared to take the risk of carrying out the work without that permission or consent).
57. It appears to be common ground that the primary responsibility for applying for planning permission rests with the employer. The essential point at issue between the parties is whether a term should be implied to the effect that the employer will ensure that planning permission is obtained, or whether there should be a more limited obligation – for example, to exercise reasonable diligence to obtain the necessary planning permission.”

The Judge said, at paragraph 67, that he could see no justification for imposing on either party sole responsibility for the consequences of capricious conduct by the local authority. For the contract to work it was not necessary that either party alone should bear that risk. The contract can work just as well if that risk is left to lie where it falls. It is a situation where, since the contract has not provided how the risk should be borne, no provision should be made.

The Judge concluded that the correct formulation of the implied term was not one for which either side contended.

A Judge recently struck out a claim brought by two dogs. He did not see how a dog could give instructions for a claim to be brought on its behalf.  Nor did he see that it could be liable for any orders made against it.  Another limitation on litigating is that you cannot sue yourself.  If there is a dispute it must be resolved without recourse to litigation when the disputants do not have separate legal personalities.  A local authority has only one legal personality. So for example the client side of the authority cannot sue the contractor side or vice versa; and the department, say the social services department, cannot sue another department of the same authority, say the housing department.  This is a somewhat anomalous situation, because it means that in the case of a unitary authority the departments have to resolve any differences without going to Court, whereas in a two-tier area, with the functions split between the tiers, the potential is there for the authorities to litigate with each other.

Section 27 of the Children Act 1989 is headed “Co-operation between authorities”. It contains a power: where it appears to a local authority that any other authority could help in the exercise of their functions with respect to the provision of services for children in need, the first authority may request the help of that other authority.  The Section also contains a duty: an authority whose help is so requested shall comply with the request (if it is compatible with their duties and obligations and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions).

The case of M&A v Islington LBC [2016] EWHC 332 (Admin) was an application on behalf of two severely autistic children for judicial review of a failure to rehouse them, in accordance with Section 17 of the Act, where the sole authority involved was a London Borough, a unitary authority, both social services and housing authority.  Therefore Section 27 could not apply directly in the way it would as between a county council as social services authority and a district council as housing authority.

However, Collins J ruled that the requirements of Section 27 did apply indirectly. This was because the Council was statutorily required to act under the general guidance of the Secretary of State, and such guidance required the same degree of co-operation between departments in a unitary authority.

On 5 February 2016 HMG has issued (1) a Consultation Paper on “Limiting Public Sector Exit Payments”, and (2) a Guidance Note on “Public Sector Pay and Terms”.

The Government has replaced its Code of Practice on Consultation issued in July 2008. The new guidance includes that “consultations should last for a proportionate amount of time”, rather than prima facie for a 12 week period.

A contracting authority must verify the suitability of its potential service providers. That verification is intended, in particular, to enable the authority to ensure that a tenderer, if successful, will have the means necessary to perform the contract, and to enable the authority to be confident that, throughout the period of the contract, the successful tenderer will be able to use whatever resources it relies upon, including the capacities of other entities.

That gives rise to two questions: first, as to what proof the authority can call for that these resources will be at the economic operator’s disposal; and, second, as to the nature of the links between that operator and those other entities. EU policy is that the tenderer is free to choose the legal nature of the links it intends to establish with those other entities.

In a case from Latvia, C-234/14, the ECJ has on 14 January 2016 held that Directive 2004/18/EC precluded a Latvian local authority from requiring a tenderer, which relied on the capacities of other entities for the performance of the contract concerned, to establish links of a precise legal nature with those entities, so that only those particular links were capable, in the eyes of the authority, of proving that the contractor does in fact have the resources necessary to perform that contract. The municipality required the tenderer, before the award of the public contract, to conclude a cooperation agreement with those entities or to set up a partnership with them. That requirement was ruled impermissible.

Cases involving NHS bodies continue to be instructive for local authorities. See R(QSRC Ltd) v NHS Commissioning Board [2015] EWHC 3752 (Admin) on the ability to enter into an interim contract pending the completion of a procurement exercise, even if (paragraph 107) the procurement exercise has been considerably delayed,  provided (paragraph 103) that there is preference of an existing provider over other potential providers; and Keep Wythenshawe Special Ltd v NHS Central Manchester CCG [2016] EWHC 17 (Admin), at paragraphs 62-79 inclusive, on how a consultation exercise should be structured, the manner in which it should be carried out, when there should be a re-consultation, and influences on the requirements of fairness.

In BT Cornwall Ltd v Cornwall Council [2015] EWHC 3755 (Comm), a services provider brought a claim against the local authority and other public sector bodies for an injunction to prevent the termination of a potentially long duration £160 million agreement between them.  The claim failed. The agreement covered services such as health, transport, communications and public safety.  It also provided for the creation of new jobs for local residents.

The agreement contained a clause entitling the local authority to waive key performance indicator scores resulting from service failures if it was satisfied that a remedial plan was in place. There were substantial problems with performance.  A number of key performance indicators fell consistently below target level.  A backlog of work accrued.

The parties established an executive forum aimed at resolving the issues. Later, however, the local al authority stated its intention to terminate the agreement for material breach.  It also claimed that the service provider’s failure to meet its annual jobs guarantee gave rise to an obligation to provide a remediation plan, which it had failed to do.  The service provider claimed that a large number of faults had been caused by the local authority.  It also claimed that a separate agreement had been entered into for the backlog to be cleared, with the implication that the key performance indicator results which fell below breach level would not be used to justify termination, and that the local authority was in any event estopped from relying on breaches in terminating for material breach.

Knowles J held that the failure to create new jobs resulted at least in part from the local authority’s failure to secure a health contract, which would have accounted for 70 new jobs. There was no contractual requirement for a remediation plan.  Accordingly, the service provider was not in breach of the agreement in that respect.  Moreover, there was no evidence that the waiver clause in the agreement had been exercised nor was there any reason to imply a waiver.  The service provider was contractually obliged to resolve the backlog and was not entitled to protection from the consequences of its failure to do so.

Knowles J further held that there was no basis for a case on estoppel or affirmation. The fact that the local authority was prepared to engage with the executive forum and to work collaboratively with the service provider was not to be held against it and did not signal that it would refrain from taking action under the agreement.   There had been no material delay on the local authority’s part, and neither its actions nor the passage of time were to be taken as an election not to terminate for material breach.

In conclusion, the service provider had failed to provide the service it had promised to the required standard. There was no capriciousness or bad faith on the local authority’s part in expecting it to clear the backlog or take the contractual consequences if doing so resulted in further breaches of the key performance indicators.  Accordingly, the service provider was in breach of the agreement such as to justify termination.

James Goudie QC

H M Treasury has issued a Consultation Paper, for response by 25 January 2016, on the final draft Regulations pursuant to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 allowing for the recovery of public sector exit payments when a high earner returns to the public sector shortly after leaving. There are changes including as follows to the previous proposal. 

The Government proposes to replace the stipulation that exit payments are recovered when an individual returns to the same part of the public sector with the proposal that public sector exit payments are recovered when an individual returns to any part of the public sector. The amount paid back will be net of tax paid.

The previous starting point was that recovery would apply only to individuals earning at or over £100,000. The Government now proposes to set the minimum salary at which the recovery provisions apply at £80,000 per annum.

The Government proposes to remove the full recovery period during which exit payments should be repaid in full on returning to a public sector body. As such, the taper begins from the first day after a public sector employee has exited.

 In Lightways (Contractors) Limited v Inverclyde Council [2015] CSOH 169 the Outer House of the Court of Session made a declaration of ineffectiveness in respect of the award of a street lighting call-off contract to an economic operator which was not a party to the relevant framework agreement, albeit it was a company in the same group as a party to that agreement.