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: 261
  • 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

  • In a move that many observers will see as a victory against the increasing ‘stealth’ privatisation of the NHS, healthcare provider Circle is set to lose its contract to the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre, despite taking legal action to get the decision changed. Circle broke new ground in 2012 by becoming the first private and for profit healthcare business to be placed in charge of running an NHS hospital. Despite this contract, at Cambridgeshire’s Hinchingbrooke hospital, returning to NHS control in 2015 due to rising financial pressures, Circle had successfully run the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre since 2008. Despite receiving high CQC ratings for patient satisfaction and having hit NHS targets for patient treatment, the firm – who claim to operate as a ‘John Lewis style social enterprise’ – lost the contract in April this year. Circle has been criticised for taking... Read More

  • A recent judgement at the High Court in London has seen the Post Office being ordered to pay over £5 million in legal costs resulting from its ongoing legal dispute with former Post Office workers. The legal action was bought by 557 former Post Office workers, many of whom were sub-postmasters, who claim that they were falsely blamed for financial shortfalls at various small Post Office branches throughout the UK. The former workers claim that a software error in the Post Office’s computer system – called Horizon – was responsible for the discrepancies which resulted in many staff losing their livelihoods. The claimant group includes Tracy Felstead, a former Post Office employee from Shropshire who in 2001 was jailed for six months after being convicted of stealing £11,500, and has always protested her innocence. The first trial, which opened in November... Read More

  • London’s Court of Appeal has ruled that a judge in a recent libel claim had ‘seriously transgressed’ the fundamental principle of neutrality and had ‘bullied’ a Litigant in Person (‘LIP’) whilst they were giving evidence at trial. The case in question, Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors, was a libel action involving a Polish language publication called Nowy Cza. The claimant was a LIP – meaning that he was representing himself rather than using a solicitor or barrister – and was giving evidence at the trial. The trial judge, Mr Justice Jay, was accused by the LIP of making: ..frequent gratuitous interjections during the trial, hostile to the claimant, putting the claimant under enormous pressure and making it extremely difficult for him to conduct the litigation”. The LIP’s plea was upheld at the Court of Appeal on three grounds: 1. That the judge’s conclusion that... Read More