OCS Group UK Limited v Community Health Partnerships Limited
[2023] EWHC 3369 (TCC)
Robert Heath Heating Limited v Orbit Group Limited
27 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 3039 (TCC)
High Court
A company lost a bid for a big contract and sued the awarding organization, claiming unfairness. The court said the company could be compensated with money if they won the case, so the contract wasn't stopped, but the company was allowed to see some documents to prepare its case better.
Key Facts
- •Robert Heath Heating Limited (RHH) challenged Orbit Group Limited's (OGL) decision to award heating service contracts to Aaron Services Limited.
- •RHH alleged breaches of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), including conflict of interest, manifest errors in scoring, and breach of equal treatment.
- •OGL's application to lift the automatic suspension of the contract award under Regulation 95 PCR 2015 was considered.
- •RHH's application for early specific disclosure of documents related to the tender evaluation was also considered.
Legal Principles
Principles for lifting automatic suspension under Regulation 95 PCR 2015: serious issue to be tried; adequacy of damages; balance of convenience.
American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396; Covanta Energy Ltd v Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority [2013] EWHC 2922; Alstom v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2019] EWHC 3585 (TCC); Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust & Anor v Lancashire County Council [2018] EWHC 200 (TCC); Draeger Safety UK Limited v The London Fire Commissioner & Anor [2021] EWHC 2221 (TCC)
Conflict of interest under Regulation 24 PCR 2015: appropriate measures to prevent, identify, and remedy conflicts; test of fair-minded and informed observer.
Regulation 24 PCR 2015; Siemens Mobility Ltd v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd [2023] EWHC 2768 (TCC)
Obligations of equal treatment and transparency under Regulation 18 PCR 2015; assessment of scoring challenges.
Regulation 18 PCR 2015; Siemens v HS2 [2023] EWHC 2768 (TCC)
Principles for early specific disclosure in procurement cases: balancing the unsuccessful tenderer's need for information with preventing fishing expeditions.
Roche Diagnostics Limited v. Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2013] EWHC 933 (TCC); Mears Ltd v Leeds City Council [2011] EWHC 40 (QB); OCS Group UK Limited v Community Health Partnerships Limited [2023] EWHC 3369 (TCC)
Adequacy of damages in procurement cases: difficulty of assessment, loss of chance, and loss of reputation.
Openview Security Solutions Ltd v Merton London Borough Council [2015] EWHC 2694 (TCC); Medequip Assistive Technology Ltd v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2022] EWHC 3292 (TCC)
Outcomes
OGL's application to lift the automatic suspension was granted.
Damages were deemed an adequate remedy for RHH, given its size and financial strength; no exceptional circumstances existed to justify maintaining the suspension.
RHH's application for early specific disclosure was granted in a limited scope.
A prima facie case was established; the disclosure was limited to documents relating to RHH's tender and specific conflict of interest allegations; the information was deemed necessary to assess the claim's viability.
Similar Cases
Boxxe Limited v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] EWHC 533 (TCC)
Teleperformance Contact Limited v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 2481 (TCC)
Dukes Bailiffs Limited v Breckland Council
[2023] EWHC 1569 (TCC)
Working on Wellbeing Ltd trading as Optima Health v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors
[2024] EWHC 766 (TCC)