Call us today0800 160 1298
 
 

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Contract dispute judgement results in £80,000 indemnity costs award against the MOD

Posted by on in Uncategorized
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 572
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

A recent judgement has seen a costs penalty of £80,000 imposed on the Ministry of Defence (MOD) following concerns over disclosure of information as part of a contract dispute case.

The case in question, Serco v Secretary of State for Defence, saw judge Mr Justice Fraser award indemnity costs against the MOD following conduct in disclosure of information that was ‘well outside the norm’ and that the required information should have been provided on a voluntary basis by the MOD months before.

The claim against the MOD was bought by Serco in June last year following the outsourcing giant’s concerns regarding how its £1.1bn bid for fire and rescue services was assessed. Serco had requested a variety of information from the MOD to provide insight as to why its bid for the 12 year contract had failed, including documentation giving reasons for its bid evaluation score. Serco made specific disclosure application which was compromised by the MOD’s delayed compliance with the requests.

Mr Justice Fraser referred the parties to extant case law that requires that a party challenging a decision must have prompt access to key documents and information concerning the bid evaluation process. He also reminded the parties of their duty to help the court to achieve the objective of the hearing. Commenting on the disclosure issues, the judge said:

It is obvious to me the MoD has not begun to grapple with its obligations in terms of disclosure, either generally or in the context of this application, until an extraordinarily late stage… A party such as Serco, which is bringing what on the face of it… is at least a prima facie credible challenge in a very sizeable, expensive procurement of enormous detail, was entitled, and is entitled, to seek these documents.”

 If you are thinking about taking legal action against another individual or company but are worried about the costs involved, Advantage Litigation Services have the skills and expertise to help you find a way of funding commercial litigation without risking your personal finances or those of your business. Click here to contact us today or call 0800 160 1298 to see how we can help.

 

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • Following a recent High Court appeal judgement, infrastructure support services provider Amey are set to receive £4m in compensation from West Sussex County Council due to a disputed highways contract procurement process. The High Court heard that an original contract bid from Amey had collapsed due to errors in the criteria scoring process, leading to the interim contract and subsequent continuity appointment being awarded to rival bidders Balfour Beatty. West Sussex County Council applied to have Amey’s claim struck out, but this was rejected by Justice Stuart-Smith. The £4m payout came to light as part of the council’s draft budget proposals. The Cabinet will go through the proposed budget for 2020/21 before it goes before a meeting of the full council on February 14 for final approval. A council statement said: The budget report also identifies that money from reserves has been used... Read More

  • The contemporary UK litigation sector now allows for a variety of alternative options when it comes to resolving commercial, business and personal legal disputes. Known as Alternative Dispute Resolution (‘ADR’), it is worth being aware of the options available and which may be best suited for your individual circumstances. The three main types of Alternative Dispute Resolution are: Mediation As there is now a requirement for parties involved in most claim types to consider mediation, this process is now regarded as a necessary step for many cases, with judges making it a requirement for a party to indicate why they have refused to mediate. Mediation is essentially a simple process, designed to limit the costs involved in litigation and to reduce the number of claims that require valuable court time. Both sides produce a meditation statement and attend a mediation session. At these... Read More

  • As well as dominating the recent UK news agenda, it would seem that the new life that the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk are planning is already facing a potential legal battle over the ownership of their ‘Sussex Royal’ trademark. Whilst the ‘Sussex Royal’ brand and trademark has already been registered in the UK, within hours of the high-profile couple’s plans being confirmed recently, an application was filed with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) that, if successful, would result in the applicant owning the ‘Sussex Royal’ trademark in all of the 23 EU-recognised languages. The EUIPO trademark request was in German, with English listed as its second language. The rapid filing covers a range of goods under the name of the couple’s website and Instagram feed, including luggage, toiletries, jewellery and beer. Whilst Harry and Meghan can lodge an objection... Read More