In the matter of an application by Geraldine Finucane for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) (2019) UKSC 7 considers substantive legitimate expectation from paragraph 55.  Lord Kerr on behalf of the Supreme Court concluded:-

“62.     From these authorities it can be deduced that where a clear and unambiguous undertaking has been made, the authority giving the undertaking will not be allowed to depart from it unless it is shown that it is fair to do so. The court is the arbiter of fairness in this context. And a matter sounding on the question of fairness is whether the alteration in policy frustrates any reliance which the person or group has placed on it. This is quite different, in my opinion, from saying that it is a prerequisite of a substantive legitimate expectation claim that the person relying on it must show that he or she has suffered a detriment.”

“64.    The onus of establishing that a sufficiently clear and unambiguous promise or undertaking, sufficient to give rise to a legitimate expectation, is cast on the party claiming it …” Read more »

On 22 February 2019, the Cabinet Office has issued a Procurement Policy Note (“PPN”) on “Applying Exclusions in Public Procurement, Managing Conflicts of Interest and Whistleblowing” to “deepen understanding” and “supplement and strengthen existing practices”.

An accompanying Information Note explains:-

“When the UK leaves the EU the public procurement regulations will remain broadly unchanged. If the UK leaves the EU with a deal, the existing scheme of UK procurement rules, which implement the EU public procurement directives, will be preserved under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the current regulations will be amended to ensure they remain operable and functional on exit.”

The PPN itself addresses Mandatory Exclusion (paragraphs 3-7 inclusive, PCR Regulation 57), Discretionary Exclusion (paragraphs 8-10 inclusive, Regulation 57), Self-declaration of status against the exclusion grounds (paragraphs 11-14 inclusive, Regulation 59), Verification (paragraphs 15-18 inclusive, Regulations 57, 59 and 60), “self-cleaning” (paragraphs 19-21 inclusive, paragraph 57) Conflicts of Interest (paragraphs 22-27 inclusive, Regulations 24, 41, 57 and 84), and “Whistleblowing” (paragraphs 28 and 29).

Paragraph 17 of the PPN emphasizes as follows:-

“In-scope Organisations must request up to date evidence from the winning bidder before award of the contract. If the supplier fails to provide the required evidence within set timeframes, or the evidence demonstrates that a mandatory exclusion ground applies, the award of the contract should not proceed.”

Whether an agreement was complete and enforceable despite there being no express identification of the event which would trigger the payment obligation was one of the issues before the Supreme Court in Wells v Devani (2019) UKSC 4.  This gave rise to questions whether there was a binding contract and as to whether there was an implied term.

The Supreme Court said as regards whether there was a binding contract:-

“17.    The question whether there was a binding contract between Mr Devani and Mr Wells required a consideration of what was communicated between them by their words and their conduct and whether, objectively assessed, that led to the conclusion that they intended to create a legally binding relationship and that they had agreed all the terms that the law requires as essential for that purpose….

18. It may be the case that the words and conduct relied upon are so vague and lacking in specificity that the court is unable to identify the terms on which the parties have reached agreement or to attribute to the parties any contractual intention. But the courts are reluctant to find an agreement is too vague or uncertain to be enforced where it is found that the parties had the intention of being contractually bound and have acted on their agreement. …”

Read more »