In this case, having previously found that there were manifest errors in the council's tender evaluation in a successful challenge to the procurement procedure, the court set aside the council's original decision. It found that the claimant's tender had been the most economically advantageous. However, the court declined to issue a mandatory injunction forcing the council to award the contract to the claimant, noting that such a remedy would only be available in exceptional circumstances, and was not a remedy that the claimant had claimed in its pleaded case. Further, the court had found the whole tender process to be flawed, and therefore it would be inappropriate to award a contract arising out of a flawed process. The court decided damages were an adequate remedy as it would be possible for the claimant to demonstrate both its wasted costs and loss of profit arising from the flawed tender process. It was appropriate to award the damages, as the Council had breached the procurement regulations, and if it hadn't, it was likely that the claimant would have been awarded the contract.
To view the full text of the decision, please click here.