• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

And the debate rages on: Court of Appeal overturns decision that Govt was guilty of apparent bias in award of contract in breach of procurement rules

In June of last year we predicted that we had not heard the last of the judicial review challenges to the award of public contracts during the pandemic. We were right. 

Now, the Court of Appeal has had its say on the debate as to whether the "means" (breach of the public procurement regulations) justified the "ends" (action taken with the stated objective of benefitting the British people during the height of the pandemic).  

Hot on the heels of the judgment of Mrs Justice O'Farrell earlier this week that the Government decision to award contracts to two companies solely on the basis that they were allocated to the "VIP lane" was unlawful on the grounds of unequal treatment, the Court of Appeal yesterday overturned the first instance decision from June 2021 that the Government was guilty of "apparent bias" in awarding a contract in breach of the public procurement rules. 

The key tension is this: 

  • At first instance, the Court found that failing to obtain competitive tenders prior to the award of the contract "would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, that the decision-maker was biased."
     
  • On appeal, the Court found that: "The fair-minded and reasonably informed observer would not have concluded that a failure to carry out a comparative exercise of the type identified by the judge created a real possibility that the decision-maker was biased.

In a nutshell, that is the difference in the judicial finding that impacts the outcome. It is as simple as that. 

In the wider context, how you view these decisions will essentially come down to your own "bias" as to whether you think that Government acted reasonably in difficult circumstances (and in the public interest), or whether you think that this breach of the rules either had as its intention, or may have had as its effect the unintended consequence of, undermining the process that ensures that the award of public contracts are subject to a demonstrably fair, transparent and incorruptible process. Or, put another way, did the ends justify the means? 

Irrespective of your point of view, the matter is unlikely to end here. The decision is likely to be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court. We will keep you posted on developments.   

Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett said: "The fair-minded and reasonably informed observer would not have concluded that a failure to carry out a comparative exercise of the type identified by the judge created a real possibility that the decision-maker was biased."

Our thinking

  • CDR Magazine quotes Stephen Chan on an agreement to expand mutual recognition of Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese court judgments

    Stephen Chan

    In the Press

  • Environmental Outcome Reporting: Overhauling EIA?

    Rachael Davidson

    Insights

  • Will Brexit lead to the next Windrush scandal? An emerging hostile environment for EU citizens in the UK

    Paul McCarthy

    Quick Reads

  • Enforcement of Judgments

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments - DIFC

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments - Abu Dhabi

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

  • A Question of Quashing: judicial review reform update

    Rachael Davidson

    Quick Reads

  • Can't do right for doing wrong: Government acted unlawfully but outcome would not have been "substantially different" in JR PPE decision

    Max Davis

    Quick Reads

  • Judicial Review Reform

    Rachael Davidson

    Insights

  • Playing fast and loose with justice: estoppel by conduct

    Ben Moore

    Insights

  • Proposed judicial review reform: "Chilling" or "Not terribly dangerous"?

    Max Davis

    Quick Reads

  • Appealing Subsidies: Competition Appeal Tribunal to hear judicial review challenges to the award of industry subsidies under new rules post Brexit.

    Max Davis

    Quick Reads

  • Judicial Review to determine whether England's quarantine hotel policy is an "unlawful deprivation of liberty"

    Max Davis

    Quick Reads

  • Up, up and dismay: Airlines bring judicial review challenge to the government's traffic light system for holiday destinations

    Max Davis

    Quick Reads

Back to top