M. Holleran Ltd. v Severn Trent Water Ltd.

M. Holleran Ltd. v Severn Trent Water Ltd.

The claim is barred by Regulation 32(4) because proceedings were not brought promptly or within three months of the alleged breaches, and there is no good reason to extend time. The claimant's knowledge or workload is irrelevant, and the notification requirements were not met pre-promptly. The refusal to extend time...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: M. Holleran Limited; Defendant: Severn Trent Water Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Preliminary Issue / Hearing of Preliminary Issue on Statutory Time Bar
Outcome
Claim barred by statutory time limit; extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Time Limits for Procurement Challenges, Extension of Time for Judicial Review, Equality and Non Discrimination in Procurement, Notification Requirements Under Procurement Regulations
Public Procurement Administrative Law EU Law Time Limits for Procurement Challenges Extension of Time for Judicial Review Equality and Non Discrimination in Procurement Notification Requirements Under Procurement Regulations

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. Holleran Limited

Claimant

Severn Trent Water Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Preliminary Issue / Hearing of Preliminary Issue on Statutory Time Bar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's claim is barred by Regulation 32(4) of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 1996
  2. 2 Whether there is good reason to extend the time for bringing proceedings under Regulation 32(4)
  3. 3 Whether the claimant complied with the notification requirements under Regulation 32(4)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is barred by Regulation 32(4) because proceedings were not brought promptly or within three months of the alleged breaches, and there is no good reason to extend time. The claimant's knowledge or workload is irrelevant, and the notification requirements were not met pre-promptly. The refusal to extend time for notification of a joint venture does not constitute a separate breach if the original criteria and deadlines were compliant.

Court Disposition

Claim barred by statutory time limit; extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Declaration that Holleran’s claim is barred by Regulation 32(4) of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 1996
  • Refusal of extension of time for commencement of proceedings