Dukes Bailiffs Limited v Breckland Council

Dukes Bailiffs Limited v Breckland Council

The contract for debt enforcement services was a concession contract under CCR 16, not a public contract under PCR 15. As the contract value was below the CCR 16 threshold, neither set of regulations applied, and the Claimant had no statutory procurement remedy. The procurement decision was not amenable to Judicial Review except for apparent bias, but even that ground was unarguable. The Claimant's only remaining claim was contractual, limited to damages.

Parties
Claimant: Dukes Bailiffs Limited; Defendant: Breckland Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Procurement Dispute / Judicial Review / Summary Judgment and Permission Hearing
Outcome
Claim under PCR 15 struck out; summary judgment granted for Defendant; permission for Judicial Review refused; Contract Claim to proceed to trial for damages only.
Legal Topics
Concession Contracts, Dynamic Purchasing Systems, Legitimate Expectation, Apparent Bias, Duty to Give Reasons, Judicial Review, Summary Judgment, Contractual Implied Terms
Public Procurement Contract Law Administrative Law Concession Contracts Dynamic Purchasing Systems Legitimate Expectation Apparent Bias Duty to Give Reasons +3 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dukes Bailiffs Limited

Claimant

Breckland Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procurement Dispute / Judicial Review / Summary Judgment and Permission Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for debt enforcement services was governed by the Public Contract Regulations 2015 (PCR 15) or Concession Contracts Regulations 2016 (CCR 16)
  2. 2 Whether the procurement decision was amenable to Judicial Review
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant breached duties of apparent bias, inadequate reasons, and legitimate expectation

Ratio Decidendi

The contract for debt enforcement services was a concession contract under CCR 16, not a public contract under PCR 15. As the contract value was below the CCR 16 threshold, neither set of regulations applied, and the Claimant had no statutory procurement remedy. The procurement decision was not amenable to Judicial Review except for apparent bias, but even that ground was unarguable. The Claimant's only remaining claim was contractual, limited to damages.

Court Disposition

Claim under PCR 15 struck out; summary judgment granted for Defendant; permission for Judicial Review refused; Contract Claim to proceed to trial for damages only.

Orders

  • Strike out of PCR 15 claim
  • Summary judgment for Defendant on procurement regulation issue