The Court of Appeal dismissed an action on 9 June 2009, by the London Borough of Brent (Brent) against a High Court ruling that it had breached the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (the Regulations). On 22 April 2008, the High Court found that the award by Brent of an insurance contract to London Authorities Mutual Limited (LAML) did not benefit from exclusion from the requirement for public tender under the Regulations on the basis that it did not qualify as an "in house" contract according to the test established by the European Court of Justice in the Teckal case. The "in house" exception is available where a contracting authority enters into an agreement with a publicly owned entity over which they exercise control equivalent to that which they would exercise over one of their own departments and that entity does the essential part of its business with the contracting authority (or authorities) that control it. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the in-house test applies in English law even if it is not expressly set out in the Regulations. It applies to both public contracts and concessions but as with all exceptions, it must be narrowly interpreted. It went on to confirm the High Court's finding that in this instance, the relationship between Brent and LAML would not meet the Teckal test on "control".