Willmott Dixon Partnership Ltd V London Borough of Hammersmith and Defendant Fulham
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR. RECORDER ACTON DAVIS QC
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Commercial Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a dispute over the awarding of a housing maintenance contract. Willmott Dixon Partnerships Limited (WDP) alleged that Hammersmith & Fulham Council (HF) breached public procurement regulations and EU law principles by using improper evaluation criteria, failing to treat bidders equally, and being influenced by irrelevant factors. The court found no evidence of wrongdoing by HF and dismissed WDP's claims, concluding that the evaluation process was fair and transparent.
The claim arises from the unsuccessful tender by Willmott Dixon Partnerships Limited (WDP) for a contract awarded by the Defendant Council (HF) for a range of repairs and maintenance services (“the Services”). On 8 th April 2013 HF decided to award the new contract for the supply of the Services to Mitie Property Services (UK) Limited (“Mitie”). WDP, who was the incumbent provider of a number of the Services in the south of the Borough, submitted a tender for the contract(s) but was unsuccessful.
On 7 th May 2013 WDP commenced proceedings against HF for breaches of statutory duty under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (as amended), breaches of principles of EU law and breaches of an implied contract. On 28 th June 2013 HF applied for an order pursuant to Regulation 47H of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (as amended) bringing to an end the requirement in Regulation 47G(1) of those Regulations that HF refrain from entering into the contract the subject of the proceedings. By a Consent Order made on 18 th September 2003: [ A/B/9] WDP agreed to that requirement being brought to an end.
By an Order made on 5 th August 2013: [A/B/1] , Ramsey J ordered that the trial be heard in two stages, the first being the “liability trial” the second stage being for the determination of quantum. This Judgment arises out of the liability trial.
WDP performed repairs, maintenance and voids services for HF from 1 st August 2005 until 31 st October 2013 when Mitie took over the provision of those services: [B/A3/8] . On 16 th March 2007 WDP, known then as Inspace Partnerships Limited, entered into two repairs and maintenance contracts with HF (these being the original contracts) although the provision of the Services had actually commenced on 28 th November 2005: [B/A1/3 at paragraph 8] . Following an extension, the first contracts expired on 31 st October 2013: [B/A1/3 at paragraph 9] .
There were issues with the structure of the original contracts which gave rise to some problems between WDP and HF: [B/A3/45-49 at paragraphs 17 to 27] . HF also struggled to remain within its annual budget with regard to the maintenance, repairs and voids works which at times caused tension between WDP and HF.
It was recognised by HF that the difficulties were predominantly caused by the design of the original contract. It was also recognised within HF that the perceived service failings were not the fault of WDP. Mr Stephen Kirrage makes plain in his second witness