Procurement Decisions

March 10th, 2017 by James Goudie KC

In R (Wylde) v Waverley Borough Council (2017) EWHC 466 (Admin) Dove J held that the claimants, who were not “economic operators” with an interest in securing the contract which was the subject of their claim, but who were a group of local councillors and residents who opposed a large scale development in Farnham Town Centre, lacked standing for a judicial review claim that the development contract had been varied, in order to decrease the sum payable by the developer to the Council for the land in question, contrary to the contracting authority’s procurement law duties.  Dove J applied the Court of Appeal decision in R (Chandler) v SoS for Children, Schools and Families (2010) LGR 1 and concluded that R (Gottlieb) v Winchester City Council (2015) EWHC 231 (Admin), the Winchester Silver Hill case, had been wrongly decided on the standing issue.  The claimants were unable to demonstrate any direct impact upon them from the variation not being regarded by the Council as a new contract and the Council’s decision that no competitive tendering exercise was required.  Any competition would be with respect to the same development that the claimants opposed.

Comments are closed.