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: 451
  • 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

  • Despite facing criticism from the legal profession since they were updated in the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations in 2013, forthcoming updates to Damages Based Agreements (‘DBA’) are set to make this model of funding for civil litigation claims far more attractive. DBA’s are a type of contingency fee whereby a solicitor or barrister receives a portion (usually a percentage) of their Clients damages in the event of a legal action successfully concluding. This percentage deduction varies depending on the type of claim, and in addition law firms may also claim back disbursements they have incurred in running the case. The updates to the DBA regulations were recently outlined by Sir Rupert Jackson, a former Lord Justice whose name became synonymous with the massive changes to the legal landscape that resulted from April 2013’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (‘LASPO’) –... Read More

  • Reigning European Cup champions and current runaway Premier League leaders Liverpool FC have failed in their bid to register the word ‘Liverpool’ as part of their wider marketing activities. The iconic club, founded in 1892 and with a fan base of millions throughout the world, had made it clear that they only wanted to register ‘Liverpool’ in the context of football-related activity. The Anfield-based club stated that its application was driven by a desire to protect fans from traders selling unauthorised products bearing the club’s name. However, a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has refused their application. Even though other clubs such as Chelsea FC have registered place name trademarks for similar football-related commercial usage, the ICO said that in comparison to their Premier League rivals, the ‘geographical significance’ of Liverpool as a city was far more significant... Read More

  • Three senior managers from Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the operators of the Fukushima power plant involved in 2011’s nuclear disaster, have been acquitted of professional negligence charges following a high-profile trial in Japan. The three men - Sakae Muto, 69; Tsunehisa Katsumata, 79; and Ichiro Takekuro, 73 - were accused of professional negligence resulting in death and injury for failing to act on information about the risks from a major tsunami. In their defence, they argued that the data available to them at the time was unreliable. Had they been convicted, the three would have faced up to five years in prison. So far, there’s has been the only criminal trial stemming from the disaster. The Fukushima disaster in March 2011 was the largest since Chernobyl in 1986, and whilst there were no deaths from direct radiation exposure in the immediate... Read More