Hossacks (A Firm of Solicitors), R (on the application of) v The Legal Services Commission

Hossacks (A Firm of Solicitors), R (on the application of) v The Legal Services Commission

The applicant's tenders were fundamentally incompatible with the tender rules, as they failed to provide required information and were based on a misunderstanding of the tender process. The Commission was entitled and bound to reject the tenders, was not required to seek clarification or allow amendment that would amount to a new application, and did not breach its duty of equal treatment as no comparable applicant was treated more favourably.

Parties
Applicant: Hossacks; Respondent: Legal Services Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Appeal (post Judgment)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; applicant to pay respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
Tendering Process, Judicial Review, Equal Treatment of Tenderers, Clarification of Tenders, Costs Orders
Public Procurement Administrative Law Tendering Process Judicial Review Equal Treatment of Tenderers Clarification of Tenders Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hossacks

Applicant

Legal Services Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Appeal (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission was unreasonable/disproportionate in rejecting the applicant's tender for Northamptonshire without clarification or amendment
  2. 2 Whether the Commission should have sought clarification or suggested amendment of the applicant's tender
  3. 3 Whether the Commission breached its duty to treat all applicants equally by rejecting the applicant's tenders

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's tenders were fundamentally incompatible with the tender rules, as they failed to provide required information and were based on a misunderstanding of the tender process. The Commission was entitled and bound to reject the tenders, was not required to seek clarification or allow amendment that would amount to a new application, and did not breach its duty of equal treatment as no comparable applicant was treated more favourably.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; applicant to pay respondent's costs.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused.
  • Applicant to pay respondent's costs, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.