Harrow Solicitors and Advocates, R (on the application of) v The Legal Services Commission [2011] EWHC 1087 (Admin) (28 April 2011)

Harrow Solicitors and Advocates, R (on the application of) v The Legal Services Commission [2011] EWHC 1087 (Admin) (28 April 2011)

The Legal Services Commission's refusal to allow Harrow to amend its tender after the deadline, even to correct a genuine and objectively verifiable error, was neither irrational nor disproportionate. The correction would have amounted to a substantive change in the bid, contrary to the principles of equal treatment and transparency. The tender process rules were clear, and there was no ambiguity or obvious error on the face of the tender to justify intervention. The wider interests of fair and consistent administration of competitive tenders outweigh the individual consequences for the claimant.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1087 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Harrow Solicitors and Advocates; Defendant: Legal Services Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Claim for Damages Under Public Contract Regulations 2006 / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Tendering Process, Public Contract Regulations, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Rationality, Equal Treatment of Tenderers
Public Procurement Administrative Law Tendering Process Public Contract Regulations Judicial Review Proportionality Rationality Equal Treatment of Tenderers

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harrow Solicitors and Advocates

Claimant

Legal Services Commission

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Claim for Damages Under Public Contract Regulations 2006 / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Legal Services Commission's refusal to allow correction of a genuine error in a tender submission was irrational or disproportionate under the Public Contract Regulations 2006 and/or judicial review principles
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to allow amendment amounted to a breach of equal treatment or transparency obligations under the Regulations
  3. 3 Whether judicial review was an appropriate remedy given the alternative statutory remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The Legal Services Commission's refusal to allow Harrow to amend its tender after the deadline, even to correct a genuine and objectively verifiable error, was neither irrational nor disproportionate. The correction would have amounted to a substantive change in the bid, contrary to the principles of equal treatment and transparency. The tender process rules were clear, and there was no ambiguity or obvious error on the face of the tender to justify intervention. The wider interests of fair and consistent administration of competitive tenders outweigh the individual consequences for the claimant.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • Both the judicial review and the claim for damages under the Public Contract Regulations 2006 are dismissed.