Dukes Bailiffs Limited v Breckland Council [2023] EWHC 1569 (TCC)
On 28 May 2021, the High Court granted Breckland’s (“the Authority”) application for summary judgment on claims under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (“the PCR 2015”) and refused permission for judicial review on all grounds in Dukes (“C”) claim for judicial review relating to the award of a contract for enforcement agency services. Enforcement agent services are subject to a bespoke regulatory and fixed tariff regime, pursuant to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.
C brought legal challenges under both the PCR 2015 and by judicial review arguing that the Authority’s decisions relating to the award of a contract for enforcement agency services was unlawful on a wide-range of different grounds, including alleged apparent, procedural unfairness, irrationality and failure to provide reasons.
The Authority applied for summary judgment in respect of the PCR 2015 claim on the basis that on proper analysis the relevant contract constituted a below threshold ‘concession’ contract that was outside the ambit of the PCR 2015, and resisted the JR claim on the basis that the decisions sought to be challenged were not amenable to judicial review because they concerned commercial decisions or conduct.
The High Court has now handed down a detailed judgment granting the Authority’s application for summary judgment and refusing permission to apply for judicial review on all grounds.
The Judgment provides detailed analysis of a number of important, and novel, issues in procurement law and applications for judicial review relating to price regulated industries and commercial decisions by public bodies.
Joseph Barrett of 11KBW appeared successfully for the Authority (instructed by Sara Sayer of Birketts).
A copy of the judgment can be found here.
