James Waste Management LLP v Essex County Council

James Waste Management LLP v Essex County Council

The modification to the IWHC was not a substantial modification under Reg 72(8): it did not render the contract materially different in character, did not considerably extend its scope, did not create a real prospect of a different tender outcome, and did not change the economic balance in favour of Veolia. The modification was a short-term, minor adjustment relative to the contract as a whole. The use of Lot 1 under the Framework Agreement was lawful and within the scope of the agreement. There was no breach of Regulation 18, and no grounds for ineffectiveness or civil penalties arose.

Parties
Claimant: James Waste Management LLP; Defendant: Essex County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Claim for Damages Under Procurement Law / Judgment After Trial on Liability, Causation, and Seriousness of Breach
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Modification of Public Contracts, Framework Agreements, Breach of Procurement Regulations, Damages for Breach of Procurement Law, Interpretation of Contractual Clauses
Public Procurement Law Contract Law Modification of Public Contracts Framework Agreements Breach of Procurement Regulations Damages for Breach of Procurement Law Interpretation of Contractual Clauses

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Waste Management LLP

Claimant

Essex County Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Damages Under Procurement Law / Judgment After Trial on Liability, Causation, and Seriousness of Breach

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the modification of the Integrated Waste Handling Contract (IWHC) was a substantial modification under Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR) Reg 72(1)(e)
  2. 2 Whether the modification was permitted by PCR Reg 72(1)(a) (Schedule 21 Issue)
  3. 3 Whether the use of Lot 1 of the Framework Agreement was unlawful (Lot 1 Issue)

Ratio Decidendi

The modification to the IWHC was not a substantial modification under Reg 72(8): it did not render the contract materially different in character, did not considerably extend its scope, did not create a real prospect of a different tender outcome, and did not change the economic balance in favour of Veolia. The modification was a short-term, minor adjustment relative to the contract as a whole. The use of Lot 1 under the Framework Agreement was lawful and within the scope of the agreement. There was no breach of Regulation 18, and no grounds for ineffectiveness or civil penalties arose.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed