In 2010 Mrs Hossack, the sole principal of a firm of solicitors which has its only office in Northamptonshire submitted a tender to the Legal Services Commission (LSC) for a contract to provide publicly funded services in social welfare law from 14 October 2010. The tendering process divided England & Wales into 125 geographical areas and Hossacks tendered for each. The tender documents required, among other things, that the prospective service provider should have, at least, a part-time office in each area where services were to be provided.
In making its bids Hossacks submitted a pro forma containing identical information. That pro forma referred in each case to Wiltshire and contained information specific to that area. In particular it stated (it turned out wrongly) that Hossacks would open a part-time office in Wiltshire.
Accordingly when it came to submitting a bid for Northamptonshire where its sole office was situated the erroneous information that the firm intended to have a part time office there was given.
In July 2011 the LSC rejected all of Hossack's bids except that for Wiltshire on the grounds that all other tender forms submitted did not relate to the applicable invitations to tender. So far not particularly unusual. What was unusual was that rather than bringing a claim under the Public Contract Regulations (the Regulations) Hossacks sought leave to bring judicial review proceedings to challenge the LSC's decision.
The usual counter to such proceedings is that the Regulations provide an alternative remedy in these cases and generally judicial review is only allowed where no other remedy is available.
This was probably accepted when the application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings was rejected on paper. On appeal this position was certainly accepted by the judge who even indicated a willingness to transfer the claim to the Chancery Division so that it could proceed under the Regulations.
Hossacks maintained however that the Regulations did not give it an alternative remedy and this argument was accepted by the Court of Appeal handing down judgment on 8 July 2011. It allowed an appeal to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the LSC's rejection of the tender for the Northampton area.
The Court of Appeal considered whether judicial review was rendered inappropriate by the existence of an alternative statutory remedy in the form of an application under the Regulations and found that it was not. If Hossacks was to succeed in proceedings for judicial review the LSC's rejection of its tender could be quashed and the LSC asked to reconsider with the possibility that a contract may be awarded at the end of it. It was not clear that the same result could be achieved under the Regulation where there was a risk that the only remedy was damages. Hossacks wanted the contract not damages.
The judicial review was heard on 27 October 2011 and was rejected for reasons that are interesting but not the main focus of this blog post. What has been interesting is the willingness of the court to accept the argument that the Regulations do not always provide an adequate alternative remedy and that judicial review may be appropriate where the Claimant is seeking effectively a second chance at the tender process.
As the case law develops on the Regulations and the courts have so far seemed reluctant to apply the ineffectiveness remedy perhaps judicial review will be used as an option instead to secure a second bite of the cherry.