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.

A Lack of Legal Expertise Can Be Fatal to Your Employment Tribunal Claim

It is only too easy for Employment Tribunal (ET) claims to founder at an early stage due to a lack of legal expertise. That very nearly happened in the case of a worker who got his employer’s name wrong when lodging an unfair dismissal complaint. When filing his claim via an online portal, the worker misidentified his former employer, a food wholesaler. As a result, his claim was initially rejected. It was later accepted after he amended his claim, giving the employer’s correct name. By that…

College Student Required to Work Late Succeeds in Age Discrimination Claim

Mentions of age discrimination may bring to mind images of grey-haired employees being treated less favourably than their younger colleagues. As a case concerning a teenage college student showed, however, young people enjoy the same legal protection as their elders. The student was delighted to find his first job as a restaurant waiter. He was contracted to work 16 hours a week, later reduced to 11 hours, and objected when his manager quite often required him to work between 11pm and midnight.…

High Court Apportions Liability for Worker’s Construction Site Fall

Construction workers often do not have formal employment contracts and, in a world where contractors and subcontractors proliferate, it can be hard to tell where legal responsibility lies in the event of an accident. That was certainly so in a High Court case concerning a labourer who suffered catastrophic injuries in a workplace fall. The worker was engaged in building a mezzanine office at factory premises when he fell onto concrete, fracturing his skull. He suffered a severe brain injury,…