‘Colin Ricciardiello provides a case law update examining cases that have examined the overlap between a requirement to procure and a contract for the disposal of an interest in land.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th July 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘High-profile legal campaigners have been dealt a blow in their latest challenge to the government – after correctly serving the right papers a day too late.’
Law Society's Gazette, 5th July 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The new Trade Act 2021 has now been passed. It received Royal Assent on 29 April 2021, after a seemingly long time spent passing through the various committee stages in Parliament. Importantly, as regards the UK’s trade remedies, the Act finally establishes the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) as the entity responsible for investigations and for reaching decisions in this arena, including recommendations that the Secretary of State for International Trade (SoS) impose trade defence measures in individual cases.’
Brexit Law, 11th May 2021
Source: brexit.law
‘A High Court judge has given her reasons for making a costs capping order of £250,000 in respect of both the claimants, the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor, and the defendant, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the procurement challenge over the award of contracts for the supply of personal protective equipment (PPE).’
Local Government Lawyer, 10th May 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Last Friday Chamberlain J handed down judgment in a challenge concerning the government’s compliance with procurement law and its own transparency guidance in the awarding of goods and services contracts during the COVID-19 pandemic. By reg. 50 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was obliged to send for publication a contract award notice (“CAN”) not later than 30 days after the award of a contract. By its transparency policy and principles it was obliged to publish details of any contract.’
39 Essex Chambers, 23rd February 2021
Source: www.39essex.com
‘This is the first in a series of procurement law judicial review (JR) cases relating to Covid-19 brought by the Good Law Project (GLP) to have reached the judgment stage. The case concerned the (non)publication of contract award notices (CANs) within 30 days under regulation 50 Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR) and of other contract notices and materials within 20 or 90 days under relevant transparency policies.’
Monckton Chambers, 19th February 2021
Source: www.monckton.com
‘Last week the High Court made a widely publicised decision declaring that a government minister and his department had acted unlawfully in relation to the award of PPE procurement contracts in the early weeks of the pandemic. The case is called R (Good Law Project and others) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWHC 346 (Admin). It’s of particular interest to us because it’s all about transparency.’
Transparency Project, 23rd February 2021
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘Local Pensions Partnership Administration Ltd (LPPA) awarded a contract under a framework. Acquila Heywood Ltd (Acquila) issued proceedings challenging the award on various bases. LPPA then withdrew the award decision and replaced it with a second decision in which Acquila was again unsuccessful. Acquila did not issue proceedings in respect of the second decision or amend its existing claim. The court held that the automatic suspension which arose under regulation 95 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102 only prevented LPPA from awarding the contract pursuant to the first decision. Once that decision had been withdrawn and the bids re-evaluated, it served no further purpose. LLPA was therefore not required to refrain from entering into a contract pursuant to its second decision. LPPA’s application to lift the suspension pursuant to PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 96(1)(a) was unnecessary.’
Henderson Chambers, 9th February 2021
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Companies recommended by MPs, peers and ministers’ offices were given priority as the government raced to obtain Personal Protective Equipment, the National Audit Office found.’
BBC News, 18th November 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A large academy school trust faces litigation from a firm that lost out in the award of an IT contract.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th October 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In a preliminary issue trial, the court considered the provisions of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015) relating to standing to bring a claim. The claimant’s case was that the council had unlawfully amended and extended an existing contract instead of conducting a full public procurement exercise and that, had such an exercise been run, it would have assembled a consortium to bid for the contract and might have won it. In a lengthy judgment, His Honour Judge Russen QC hammered home the fact that a potential challenger has to establish on the balance of probabilities that it has a ‘material interest’ in the procurement in order to bring a claim under PCR 2015. It is not sufficient, in order to meet the requirements of PCR 2015, reg 91, for a claimant to say that it has established only a more than fanciful case that it has, through noncompliance with the regulations, lost a more than fanciful opportunity. Community R4C Ltd v Gloucestershire County Council [2020] EWHC 1803 (TCC).’
Henderson Chambers, 5th August 2020
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘The Good Law Project will today [15 June] launch judicial review proceedings over the Government’s award of an £108m contract to a pest control company for the supply of PPE.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th June 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In Riverside Truck Rental Ltd-v-Lancashire County Council [2020] EWHC 1018 (TCC) the High Court confirmed the strict application of the rules governing the time limits for bringing a claim for breach of the EU Public Procurement regime, whether it be in the High Court (TCC) by way of a claim under the regulation 91 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, or in the Administrative Court by way of a claim for judicial review.’
Henderson Chambers, 14th May 2020
‘Boris Johnson will find out on Thursday if he faces a criminal investigation into his relationship with an American businesswoman while he was mayor of London.’
The Guardian, 20th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The court provided a closely reasoned judgment granting Network Rail’s application to lift the automatic suspension which arose on issue of a procurement challenge by Alstom pursuant to Regulation 110 of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/274). The court’s approach and the principles that it employed are likely to be equally applicable to an application to lift the automatic suspension under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/102). As the court found that damages would be an adequate remedy for Alstom but not an adequate remedy for Network Rail, Network Rail’s application was granted. Written by Jonathan Lewis, barrister, at Henderson Chambers.’
Henderson Chambers, 9th January 2020
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘In a major judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal last week, Coulson LJ has given important guidance on the scope of the Concessions Contract Regulations 2016 (“the CCRs”), the extent of the land transaction exemption, and the requirements for claimants to show ‘sufficiently serious breach’ in procurement claims more generally. This was the first case to consider the CCRs in such a level of detail, and – in a ruling likely to be welcomed by public authorities – the meaning of ‘concession contract’ for the purposes of the Regulations is construed relatively narrowly, with the land transaction exemption given a conversely generous interpretation. The judge’s comments on the hurdles which a claimant must surmount to be awarded Francovich damages for breaches of procurement law also have a notably pro-defendant slant.’
Monckton Chambers, 16th October 2019
Source: www.monckton.com
‘In Amey Highways Ltd v West Sussex Highways [2019] EWHC 1291 (TCC), Stuart SmithJ held that a contracting authority’s decision to abandon a procurement following a challenge brought by a disappointed tenderer does not automatically extinguish that tenderer’s claim for damages.’
Henderson Chambers, 25th June 2019
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Kenson Contractors v Haringey LBC (2019) EWHC 1230 (Admin) was an application made by the Claimant contractor, for an interim injunction against the Council to suspend its decision to award or execute a road-improvement contract to the Interested Party, Marlborough Highways Limited (“MHL”). Kenson came second in the procurement exercise for that contract and MHL came first. Because of the value of the contract (some £630,000 plus VAT) this procurement exercise was well below the threshold for the operation of the otherwise relevant parts of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The underlying claim was brought by way of judicial review (“JR”) of the Council’s decision to award the contract to MHL rather than Kenson.’
Local Government Law, 22nd May 2019
Source: local-government-law.11kbw.com
‘The government is facing a court challenge over the contracts it awarded to three shipping firms as part of its no-deal Brexit preparations.’
BBC News, 1st March 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024