All About Rights Law Practice, R (on the application of) v Legal Services Commission

All About Rights Law Practice, R (on the application of) v Legal Services Commission

The LSC was entitled to reject AAR's tender for failure to submit a completed mandatory form by the deadline. The tender terms were clear, mandatory, and fairly applied. There was no obligation, in law or under principles of proportionality or equality, to allow AAR to remedy the omission after the deadline. The LSC's approach was rational, consistent, and not arbitrary.

Parties
Claimant: All About Rights Law Practice; Defendant: Legal Services Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Tendering Process, Public Contracts Regulations 2006, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Equality of Treatment, Good Administration
Public Procurement Administrative Law Tendering Process Public Contracts Regulations 2006 Judicial Review Proportionality Equality of Treatment Good Administration

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

All About Rights Law Practice

Claimant

Legal Services Commission

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Legal Services Commission was obliged or had discretion to allow the claimant to remedy an omission in its tender after the deadline under the principles of proportionality, equality of treatment, and good administration.
  2. 2 Whether the LSC's policy or approach to incomplete tenders was irrational, arbitrary, or inconsistent with the applicable legal framework.

Ratio Decidendi

The LSC was entitled to reject AAR's tender for failure to submit a completed mandatory form by the deadline. The tender terms were clear, mandatory, and fairly applied. There was no obligation, in law or under principles of proportionality or equality, to allow AAR to remedy the omission after the deadline. The LSC's approach was rational, consistent, and not arbitrary.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed