Suspension on Award of Fire Brigade Safety Equipment Contract Maintained

If you feel that you have been treated unfairly in a public contract tendering exercise, you are anything but powerless and should take legal advice straight away. A High Court case on point concerned the award of a contract for the supply of protective breathing equipment to a municipal fire…

Aug 11, 2021

Logan weaver wverfzupxug unsplash 683x1024

Recent years have brought significant improvements in safety apparatus used by firefighters and, against the background of the Grenfell Tower disaster, the brigade was anxious to update its officers’ equipment. A company that had provided respiratory apparatus to the brigade for 10 years was one of those who tendered for a fresh 10-year contract. The contract was, however, awarded to a trade rival after it scored higher than the company, both in terms of quality and price.

The company launched proceedings against the brigade under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, arguing that the tendering process was seriously flawed. It asserted, amongst other things, that the rival’s tender was abnormally low and that there were manifest errors in scoring bids. The allegations were disputed by the brigade but, by operation of Regulation 95(1) of the Regulations, award of the contract was automatically suspended pending resolution of the dispute.

In rejecting the brigade’s application to lift the suspension, the Court found that the company had raised serious issues to be tried. If the suspension were lifted in error, the company would not be adequately compensated by an award of damages. The same could, however, also be said of the brigade if the suspension were maintained in error, thus delaying the award of an important contract.

The Court acknowledged that the public interest in the timely introduction of new protective equipment was a very strong factor in favour of lifting the suspension. However, the Court was in a position to accommodate an expedited trial of the dispute within a matter of weeks. Such a brief delay would not have any major impact on the progress of the equipment improvements. The balance thus came down in favour of maintaining the suspension until the outcome of the trial.

Foster Panel Chair an Independent Officeholder, Not an Employee

The distinction between an independent officeholder and an employee could hardly be more important but is sometimes difficult to discern. That was certainly so in the case of a woman who served for many years as an independent chair of a local authority’s fostering panel. After her appointment was terminated, the woman lodged an Employment Tribunal (ET) complaint against the council, alleging unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The council denied her claims and, at a preliminary hearing,…

Leaky Victorian Drains Trigger Successful Unfair Dismissal Claim

It almost goes without saying that employers who fail to provide their staff with a safe working environment positively invite Employment Tribunal (ET) complaints. A case on point concerned an opticians’ shop that was afflicted by leaks and nasty smells arising from an antiquated drainage system. An optical consultant who worked in the shop suffered from multiple sclerosis. Leaks from the Victorian drains caused her particular anxiety because medical treatment she was undergoing suppressed her…

Are ‘Smart’ Motorways Safe? High Court Ruling Begs the Question

Are so called ‘smart’ motorways, which lack hard shoulders, safe? An answer to that question was implicitly begged by a High Court case concerning a catastrophic accident involving a minibus filled with university students, one of whom died. The university-owned minibus was returning from a sporting event along a stretch of smart motorway when it began to lose power. After a dashboard warning light came on, the driver pulled into an emergency refuge area (ERA). About 22 seconds later, he drove…