Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd & Ors v Department of Education for Northern Ireland [2011] NICA 59 (26 September 2011)

Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd & Ors v Department of Education for Northern Ireland [2011] NICA 59 (26 September 2011)

The appellant committed a manifest error by relying on fee percentages as a reliable indicator of price competitiveness in the award of the framework agreement; the claim was not statute barred as the limitation period was either complied with or would have been extended due to ongoing correspondence and standstill extension; the court had power to set aside the framework agreement as Regulation 47(9) did not limit remedies to damages for framework agreements.

Citation
[2011] NICA 59
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: F B McKee and Company Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: Desmond Scott and Philip Ewing trading as Woodvale Construction Company Limited; Defendant/appellant: Department of Education for Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
26 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Framework Agreements, Award Criteria, Manifest Error, Remedies, Limitation Period
Public Procurement Contract Law Administrative Law Framework Agreements Award Criteria Manifest Error Remedies Limitation Period

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

F B McKee and Company Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Desmond Scott and Philip Ewing trading as Woodvale Construction Company Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Department of Education for Northern Ireland

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of fee percentages as a price mechanism in the award of a framework agreement constituted a manifest error under the Public Contract Regulations 2006
  2. 2 Whether the claim was statute barred under Regulation 47(7)(b) of the 2006 Regulations
  3. 3 Whether the court had power to set aside the framework agreement as a remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant committed a manifest error by relying on fee percentages as a reliable indicator of price competitiveness in the award of the framework agreement; the claim was not statute barred as the limitation period was either complied with or would have been extended due to ongoing correspondence and standstill extension; the court had power to set aside the framework agreement as Regulation 47(9) did not limit remedies to damages for framework agreements.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • framework agreement set aside