header-logo header-logo

18 June 2009
Issue: 7374 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Procurement challenge

Commercial

A local authority is liable for damages for abandoning a procurement process in favour of an associated company, the Court of Appeal has held, in a case which is likely to encourage more legal challenges from bidders.
In Risk Management Partners Ltd v Council of the London Borough of Brent & Ors, Brent had started a procurement process, in which Risk Management (RMP) had made the most financially advantageous bid. However, Brent abandoned the process and awarded the contract to London Authorities Mutual Ltd, of which Brent was a participating member.

RMP sued on the basis Brent had infringed the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. Brent accepted this but argued in-house awards were exempt from the regulations, on the basis of Teckal SrL v Comune di Viano [1999].
The Court of Appeal interpreted the in-house exemption strictly, ruling in favour of RMP.

Catherine Wolfenden, senior associate, Osborne Clarke, says: “This is a rare example of the court holding a public body liable for damages under the current procurement rules. 

“However, the UK is due to implement the new Remedies Directive by the end of this year. This will significantly strengthen the powers of the courts where a public authority breaches the Regulations, and is likely to make this sort of decision much more common.  

“The recovery of damages by RMP in this case should encourage disgruntled bidders to bring complaints before the courts where the procurement rules have been infringed.”

Issue: 7374 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll