Clinton (t/a Oriel Training Services) v Department for Employment and Learning & Anor [2012] NICA 48 (13 November 2012)

Clinton (t/a Oriel Training Services) v Department for Employment and Learning & Anor [2012] NICA 48 (13 November 2012)

The wording of SC1 failed to clearly and transparently spell out to tenderers what was expected, resulting in exclusion based on an unclear criterion. The Department was guilty of manifest error by not seeking clarification from the respondent, breaching principles of proportionality and equal treatment. The appeal is dismissed and the lower court's decision affirmed.

Citation
[2012] NICA 48
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: William Clinton trading as Oriel Training Services; Defendant/appellant: Department for Employment and Learning; Defendant/appellant: Department of Finance and Personnel
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
13 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; lower court decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Transparency in Procurement, Equal Treatment of Tenderers, Clarification in Tender Process, Manifest Error, Interpretation of Selection Criteria
Public Procurement Administrative Law European Law Transparency in Procurement Equal Treatment of Tenderers Clarification in Tender Process Manifest Error Interpretation of Selection Criteria

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Clinton trading as Oriel Training Services

Plaintiff/respondent

Department for Employment and Learning

Defendant/appellant

Department of Finance and Personnel

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the selection criterion SC1 clear and transparent?
  2. 2 Did the Department commit manifest error in rejecting the respondent's tender?
  3. 3 Was the Department obliged to seek clarification from the respondent?

Ratio Decidendi

The wording of SC1 failed to clearly and transparently spell out to tenderers what was expected, resulting in exclusion based on an unclear criterion. The Department was guilty of manifest error by not seeking clarification from the respondent, breaching principles of proportionality and equal treatment. The appeal is dismissed and the lower court's decision affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; lower court decision affirmed.

Orders

  • Department's exclusion of respondent's tender set aside.
  • Department required to reconsider respondent's tender in accordance with principles of transparency, equality, and proportionality.