Sidey Ltd, Re Judicial Review [2011] ScotCS CSOH_194 (24 November 2011)

Sidey Ltd, Re Judicial Review [2011] ScotCS CSOH_194 (24 November 2011)

There was no cross-border interest in the contract, so Community law and remedies did not apply. The petitioners had a legitimate expectation that the respondents would apply principles of equal treatment and transparency, which was not followed. The respondents acted irrationally and in error of law in awarding the contract. No implied contract or duty of care was established beyond public law duties.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_194
Parties
Petitioner: Sidey Limited; Respondent: Clackmannanshire Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / First Hearing
Outcome
Petitioners' third, fourth, and fifth pleas in law sustained; decree of declarator pronounced that respondents acted irrationally and in error of law in awarding the contract; remaining pleas to be discussed By Order.
Legal Topics
Tender Evaluation, Legitimate Expectation, Implied Contract, Duty of Care, Community Law Obligations
Public Procurement Administrative Law Contract Law Tender Evaluation Legitimate Expectation Implied Contract Duty of Care Community Law Obligations

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sidey Limited

Petitioner

Clackmannanshire Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / First Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Community law obligations applied to a below-threshold public contract
  2. 2 Whether the petitioners had a legitimate expectation of equal treatment and transparency
  3. 3 Whether the respondents acted irrationally or in error of law in awarding the contract

Ratio Decidendi

There was no cross-border interest in the contract, so Community law and remedies did not apply. The petitioners had a legitimate expectation that the respondents would apply principles of equal treatment and transparency, which was not followed. The respondents acted irrationally and in error of law in awarding the contract. No implied contract or duty of care was established beyond public law duties.

Court Disposition

Petitioners' third, fourth, and fifth pleas in law sustained; decree of declarator pronounced that respondents acted irrationally and in error of law in awarding the contract; remaining pleas to be discussed By Order.

Orders

  • Decree of declarator that respondents acted irrationally and in error of law in awarding the 2009/2010 kitchen and bathroom replacement programme.
  • Case to appear By Order to discuss implications on unresolved pleas.