Group M UK Ltd v Cabinet Office
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Commercial Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves Group M challenging the awarding of a public procurement contract to Carat. Group M argued that Carat's pricing was unsustainable, securing a statutory suspension on the contract award. The court had to decide whether to lift the suspension and allow the Cabinet Office to proceed with the contract. The court concluded that there was no serious issue to be tried and determined the balance of convenience favored lifting the suspension, allowing the contract to be awarded to Carat.
JUDGMENT
Mr Justice Akenhead:
Introduction
In this public procurement case, following extensive argument on 4 November 2014, I handed down judgment on 5 November 2014 lifting the statutory suspension on the placing of the Media Services contract in question; that was reported at [2014] EWHC 3659 (TCC) . It is unnecessary to summarise the judgment other than to say that the Cabinet Office secured judgment in its favour against Group M, who had come second in the tendering process in question. The successful tenderer, Carat, a division of Dentsu Aegis Network Ltd, participated and attended the hearings. This judgment is concerned with the costs of Carat and at what level, if anything, they should be summarily assessed.
The Cabinet Office’s application was listed to be heard originally on 23 October 2014 but I was informed by letter from the Treasury Solicitor dated 22 October 2014 that “the Parties have recently entered into discussions and are hoping to reach a settlement" and was asked to adjourn the hearing for at least seven days. The hearing was adjourned and, so far as I can recall, the parties were offered dates on 30 or 31 October 2014, which were not suitable for all Counsel. The hearing was re-fixed for the following Tuesday, 4 November 2014, which was finally fixed at a relatively short notice.
Following the handing down of the judgement on 5 November 2014, all Counsel, who had attended on behalf of both of the Cabinet Office and Group M, addressed me on costs. I awarded costs of and occasioned by the suspension lifting application to the Cabinet Office and, without any real challenge from Group M, summarily assessed those at £38,695.
I also addressed on this occasion the issue as to whether as a matter of principle Carat, as an "Interested Party", would be entitled to have its costs also relating to the application as it had successfully supported it. I gave an ex tempore ruling, which I set out below, albeit with some added references:
“(i) As with other matters in this case, there seem to be issues. Section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, as a matter of generality, gives the High Court a complete discretion as to costs of and incidental to all proceedings in the High Court, amongst others. Section 51(3) states:
"The court shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid."
(ii) This, it seems to me, should be considered primarily as a matter of discretion. Those provisions are sometimes used, fo