Amaryllis Ltd v HM Treasury

Amaryllis Ltd v HM Treasury

The claimant's letter of 4th June 2008 constituted adequate notice under Regulation 47(7)(a) as it identified the alleged breaches and intention to bring proceedings. The grounds for bringing proceedings first arose on 17th March 2008 when the claimant was notified of exclusion from Lot 1. Proceedings were brought...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Amaryllis Limited; Defendant: HM Treasury sued as OGCbuying Solutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out
Outcome
Defendant's applications for summary judgment and to strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Contracts Regulations 2006, Framework Agreements, Limitation Periods, Notice Requirements, Tender Evaluation, Transparency and Equal Treatment
Public Procurement Administrative Law Public Contracts Regulations 2006 Framework Agreements Limitation Periods Notice Requirements Tender Evaluation Transparency and Equal Treatment

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amaryllis Limited

Claimant

HM Treasury sued as OGCbuying Solutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant gave adequate notice under Regulation 47(7)(a) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006
  2. 2 When the grounds for bringing proceedings first arose under Regulation 47(7)(b)
  3. 3 Whether proceedings were brought promptly and within three months as required by Regulation 47(7)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's letter of 4th June 2008 constituted adequate notice under Regulation 47(7)(a) as it identified the alleged breaches and intention to bring proceedings. The grounds for bringing proceedings first arose on 17th March 2008 when the claimant was notified of exclusion from Lot 1. Proceedings were brought within three months and promptly, and any delay was attributable to the defendant's failure to provide information. Therefore, the defendant's applications for summary judgment and strike out are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's applications for summary judgment and to strike out dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings to continue; defendant's applications dismissed