Edenred (UK Group) Ltd v Her Majesty's Treasury & Ors

Edenred (UK Group) Ltd v Her Majesty's Treasury & Ors

The arrangements between HMRC and NS&I for delivery of TFC, as reflected in the MOU, are not a public services contract under the Regulations or an economic opportunity under Article 56 TFEU. The MOU is not legally binding and does not create enforceable obligations. The amendment to the Atos Outsourcing Contract is not a material variation, as the services fall within the scope of the original procurement and do not confer a competitive advantage or change the economic balance. Edenred did not have a real prospect of being awarded the contract, as it lacked the financial and operational capacity to deliver the services as a sole provider, and there was no evidence that any other...

Parties
Claimant: Edenred (UK Group) Limited; First Defendant: Her Majesty’s Treasury; Second Defendant: Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs; Third Defendant: National Savings and Investments
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (public Procurement Challenge) / Judgment After Speedy Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Contracts Regulations 2006, Material Variation, Intra Governmental Arrangements, Article 56 TFEU, Remedies Directive, Childcare Payments Act 2014
Public Procurement Administrative Law European Union Law Public Contracts Regulations 2006 Material Variation Intra Governmental Arrangements Article 56 TFEU Remedies Directive +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edenred (UK Group) Limited

Claimant

Her Majesty’s Treasury

First Defendant

Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs

Second Defendant

National Savings and Investments

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (public Procurement Challenge) / Judgment After Speedy Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrangements between HMRC and NS&I for delivery of tax-free childcare (TFC) constitute a public services contract under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 or an economic opportunity under Article 56 TFEU requiring public procurement.
  2. 2 Whether the amendment to the Atos Outsourcing Contract to support TFC delivery is a material variation requiring a new procurement process.
  3. 3 Whether Edenred suffered loss or had a real prospect of being awarded the contract if procurement had occurred.

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangements between HMRC and NS&I for delivery of TFC, as reflected in the MOU, are not a public services contract under the Regulations or an economic opportunity under Article 56 TFEU. The MOU is not legally binding and does not create enforceable obligations. The amendment to the Atos Outsourcing Contract is not a material variation, as the services fall within the scope of the original procurement and do not confer a competitive advantage or change the economic balance. Edenred did not have a real prospect of being awarded the contract, as it lacked the financial and operational capacity to deliver the services as a sole provider, and there was no evidence that any other...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed in entirety
  • No declaratory or injunctive relief granted