Hastings & Co (Insolvency) Ltd v The Accountant in Bankruptcy [2013] ScotCS CSOH_55 (27 March 2013)

Hastings & Co (Insolvency) Ltd v The Accountant in Bankruptcy [2013] ScotCS CSOH_55 (27 March 2013)

The pursuer failed to establish a strong prima facie case of infringement of the 2012 Regulations. The notification requirements were met only for certain challenges, and no manifest error or illegal discrimination was found in the evaluation process. The balance of convenience and public interest favoured ending the prohibition on entering the framework agreement.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_55
Parties
Pursuer: Hastings & Co (Insolvency) Ltd; Defender: The Accountant in Bankruptcy; Third Party Intervener: Wylie & Bissett
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Application Under Public Contracts (scotland) Regulations 2012 / Interim Order Application Under Regulation 47(9)
Outcome
Interim order granted; prohibition on entering into the framework agreement brought to an end.
Legal Topics
Tender Process, Equal Treatment, Transparency, Discrimination Against Smes, Notification Requirements, Time Bar, Interim Relief
Public Procurement Administrative Law Tender Process Equal Treatment Transparency Discrimination Against Smes Notification Requirements Time Bar +1 more

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

Parties

Hastings & Co (Insolvency) Ltd

Pursuer

The Accountant in Bankruptcy

Defender

Wylie & Bissett

Third Party Intervener

Procedural Posture

Application Under Public Contracts (scotland) Regulations 2012 / Interim Order Application Under Regulation 47(9)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer complied with notification requirements under regulation 47(6)
  2. 2 Whether certain claims were time-barred under regulation 47(7)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the tender process discriminated against SMEs or used undisclosed criteria

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to establish a strong prima facie case of infringement of the 2012 Regulations. The notification requirements were met only for certain challenges, and no manifest error or illegal discrimination was found in the evaluation process. The balance of convenience and public interest favoured ending the prohibition on entering the framework agreement.

Court Disposition

Interim order granted; prohibition on entering into the framework agreement brought to an end.

Orders

  • Interim order under regulation 47(9) of the 2012 Regulations bringing to an end the prohibition on the contracting authority from entering into the proposed framework agreement.