BSF Group Ltd. v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor

BSF Group Ltd. v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor

The claimant's allegations of breach of procurement law were weak, particularly regarding any right to negotiation under the negotiated procedure. The Secretary of State acted within the wide discretion afforded in procurement processes, and no manifest error or lack of transparency was established. The claims based on failure to negotiate were out of time, and no good reason for extension was shown. The balance of justice, including risk of disruption to public supply and prejudice to the successful tenderer, favoured refusing interim injunctive relief.

Parties
Claimant: BSF Group Limited; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Defence; 2nd Defendant: Purple Foodservice Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Procurement Challenge / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Public Supply Contracts Regulations 1995, Negotiated Procedure, Interim Injunctions, Transparency and Fairness in Procurement, Limitation Periods, Remedies for Breach of Procurement Law
Public Procurement Administrative Law Contract Law Public Supply Contracts Regulations 1995 Negotiated Procedure Interim Injunctions Transparency and Fairness in Procurement Limitation Periods +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BSF Group Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Defence

1st Defendant

Purple Foodservice Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Procurement Challenge / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State breached the 1995 Regulations in the procurement process for a food supply contract
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to negotiation under the negotiated procedure
  3. 3 Whether the award criteria and their application were unfair or lacked transparency

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's allegations of breach of procurement law were weak, particularly regarding any right to negotiation under the negotiated procedure. The Secretary of State acted within the wide discretion afforded in procurement processes, and no manifest error or lack of transparency was established. The claims based on failure to negotiate were out of time, and no good reason for extension was shown. The balance of justice, including risk of disruption to public supply and prejudice to the successful tenderer, favoured refusing interim injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction dismissed
  • No order for interim declaration