Geodesign Barriers Ltd v The Environment Agency [2015] EWHC 1121 (TCC) (29 April 2015)

Geodesign Barriers Ltd v The Environment Agency [2015] EWHC 1121 (TCC) (29 April 2015)

Specific disclosure was ordered for certain categories of documents (emails providing guidance to evaluators, bids of other higher-ranked tenderers, and any contemporaneous documents relating to the evaluation meetings) because these were relevant to the pleaded issues and necessary for the claimant to address the causation point raised by the defendant. No order was made for documents that the defendant, by sworn evidence, asserted did not exist. The confidentiality ring was extended to include one expert for the claimant, but not company representatives. The claimant was refused the identities of other unsuccessful tenderers and permission for future amendments without specific proposals.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1121 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Geodesign Barriers Limited; Defendant: The Environment Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Procurement Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Specific Disclosure and Related Orders
Outcome
Partially granted and partially refused
Legal Topics
Specific Disclosure, Tender Evaluation, Confidentiality Ring, Amendment of Pleadings, Public Contracts Regulations 2006
Public Procurement Civil Procedure Specific Disclosure Tender Evaluation Confidentiality Ring Amendment of Pleadings Public Contracts Regulations 2006

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geodesign Barriers Limited

Claimant

The Environment Agency

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procurement Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Specific Disclosure and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant must provide specific disclosure of documents relating to the tender evaluation process
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to the identities of other unsuccessful tenderers
  3. 3 Whether permission should be granted to amend the particulars of claim following disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Specific disclosure was ordered for certain categories of documents (emails providing guidance to evaluators, bids of other higher-ranked tenderers, and any contemporaneous documents relating to the evaluation meetings) because these were relevant to the pleaded issues and necessary for the claimant to address the causation point raised by the defendant. No order was made for documents that the defendant, by sworn evidence, asserted did not exist. The confidentiality ring was extended to include one expert for the claimant, but not company representatives. The claimant was refused the identities of other unsuccessful tenderers and permission for future amendments without specific proposals.

Court Disposition

Partially granted and partially refused

Orders

  • Specific disclosure of emails between evaluators and procurement officer (category C)
  • Specific disclosure of bid documents for tenderers A, B, C, and D (category E)