Brookhouse Group Limited v Lancashire County Council
[2023] EWHC 2921 (TCC)
Lancashire County Council v Brookhouse Group Limited
28 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 717
Court of Appeal
A council gave a contract to a company without a fair competition. Another company sued, arguing about the deadline to sue. The court ruled that because there was no competition, the deadline was 6 months, not 30 days, and the council was wrong to try to hide its decision.
Key Facts
- •Procurement dispute under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR15).
- •Lancashire County Council (Council) awarded a contract (Development Agreement - DA) to Eric Wright Group Limited's subsidiary without a public competition.
- •Brookhouse Group Limited (Brookhouse), a joint owner of the land involved, challenged the direct award.
- •The Council argued that the 30-day time limit in Regulation 93(2)(a) applied.
- •Brookhouse argued that the 6-month time limit in Regulation 93(2)(b) applied.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of Regulations 55, 93, and 99 of the PCR15 regarding time limits for challenging contract awards.
Public Contracts Regulations 2015
Definition of 'economic operator', 'candidate', and 'tenderer' under PCR15.
Public Contracts Regulations 2015
Sufficiency of reasons provided by a contracting authority to an unsuccessful candidate/tenderer.
Sita UK Ltd v Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority [2011] EWCA Civ 156
Principle of rapidity in public procurement.
SITA UK Ltd v Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority [2011] EWCA Civ 156
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court held that the 6-month time limit in Regulation 93(2)(b) applied because there was no competition; therefore, Regulation 93(5) (the 30-day limit triggered by informing the economic operator) was inapplicable. The Council's decision to not issue a contract award notice to avoid alerting other potential bidders was deemed a breach of their transparency obligations.