Tristan Jones analyses two recent judgments that have redefined when claimants must bring public procurement challenges.
Author: Tristan Jones
A common difficulty faced by potential claimants in public procurement challenges
is the asymmetry of information with the contracting authority. It may not be immediately apparent whether the authority has breached the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 ("the Regulations") or, if so, how serious the breach was. This problem is particularly pressing in light of the short time limits in the procurement context.
Candour and disclosure in JR
Ben Jaffey assesses the guiding principles
Author: Ben Jaffey
Once upon a time there was a golden age. Orders for disclosure were viewed as unnecessary except in the rarest of cases. The duty of candour could be relied on to produce full and frank evidence setting out the relevant facts. The parties would conduct litigation "with all the cards face up on the table" and the Court would accept the contents of an affidavit without question. If this golden age ever existed, it has now gone.
Statutory licences are 'public law instruments'
Charlie Potter sets out the implications of a recent decision of interest to all regulators
Author: Charlie Potter
A recent High Court case provides useful authority for the proposition that licences granted by regulators pursuant to statutory powers do not have the status of contracts giving rise to private law rights and obligations.
R v Morley and Ors  EWCA Crim 1910
The Court of Appeal has ruled that parliamentary privilege “has never ever attached to ordinary criminal activities by members of Parliament”. Lord Pannick QC and James Segan acted for the Crown in successfully arguing that three MPs and a Peer who are accused of expenses fraud are not protected by privilege and must stand trial. The Court concluded that “we are unable to envisage how dishonest claims by members of Parliament for their expenses or allowances begin to involve the legislative or core functions of the relevant House, or the proper performance of their important public duties”. An expedited appeal to the Supreme Court takes place in October 2010.
AN v Secretary of State for the Home Department; AE & AF v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 869
The Court of Appeal has held that Control Orders made by the Secretary of State on the basis of an erroneous understanding of the law, and the reach of Article 6 of the European Convention, fall to be quashed ab initio. The result is that any prosecutions brought on the basis of alleged breach of such Orders would fail and that the controlled persons may be entitled to claim damages at common law and pursuant to the HRA 1998 for the interference with their liberty while the subject of such Control Orders. The Secretary of State has sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Dinah Rose QC appeared for AN, Tim Otty QC appeared for AE and AF; Tom Hickman appeared for AF (led by Tim Otty QC). James Eadie QC appeared for the Secretary of State.