In the first of a series, this article examines the impact of the Derby case on how local authorities should apply and charities can claim business rate relief.
The European Court has upheld the long-standing principle that parties to a dispute should be able to choose their lawyers without having to go through a tender process (or use a framework).
This exception is set out in Regulation 10(1)(d) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.
The challenger was arguing that the European directive on which this regulation was based, breached the principle of equal treatment, in terms of creating an unjustified difference in treatment of these services from other services that had to be tendered for.
The European Court said that clients should be able to choose lawyers for dispute resolution based on their abilities, rather than having to follow a strict “most economically advantageous tender” approach. The exception also specifically includes arbitration and, by implication, adjudication.
This contrasts with legal work that is not “dispute-related”, which is subject to the “light-touch regime”. If an organisation subject to the public procurement rules has a legal spend of over £615,278 (excluding VAT), a public procurement tender process is needed to appoint their lawyers. Where this is through a framework agreement (which is likely to include any arrangement under which charging rates and appointment terms are agreed), this is measured over a four-year period.
Even here, though, up to 20% of this “requirement” can be sourced (for example for specialist work) from lawyers that are not on the framework under the “small lots” provisions, as long as the value of each separate appointment does not exceed £65,630 (excluding VAT).
If you are involved in a dispute, it is important to get the right legal advice. The case confirms that your flexibility to appoint the legal advisers of your choosing is not hampered by having to comply with the public procurement rules to appoint those legal advisers.
For more information, please contact Andrew Millross.
1. P.M v Ministeraad, Case C-246/18
“Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2018/19” published by the CQC, has found that although improvements have been made, healthcare services need to do more to comply with their human rights duties.
The IPPR North report says that this Parliament must be the “Devolution Parliament” to truly “level up” the country.
On 20 January 2020, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) issued Advice for Building Owners of Multi-storey, Multi-occupied Residential Buildings.
The Society for Computers and Law (SCL) has introduced an Adjudication Scheme for IT Projects and Services.
The board of a housing services company was reportedly dismissed in December 2019 following the discovery of a variety of safety and hygiene issues in the properties they manage.
The Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014 (the Regulations) place certain responsibilities on anyone supplying and charging for heating, cooling or hot water (the heat supplier).
In our latest Company Secretary Update, we focus on the Queen’s Speech over Christmas and the recommendations and commitments in relation to housing.
So after two days of legal argument, the Supreme Court have now retired to reach their decision in the joined cases of Tomlinson-Blake v the Royal Mencap Society and Shannon v Rampersad.
Anthony Collins Solicitors has revealed details of its annual social impact, including advising on funding deals for building 19,603 new homes and setting up 90 new charities.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.