Travis Perkins Trading Company Ltd v Caerphilly County Borough Council

In determining whether a procurement claim was commenced in time, the court must construe the claim form as a whole. Only brief details of the nature of the claim are required under CPR Part 16.2, but the wording must give the defendant a sufficiently clear indication of the claim and remedy sought. The court may consider the factual matrix, contemporaneous correspondence, applications and, where appropriate, particulars of claim served shortly after the claim form. A claim form need not set out every factual particular or legal complaint if its language, read in context, covers the substance of the later pleading. Where the claim form identified alleged breaches of procurement obligations arising from information about the treatment of other tenderers, the later particulars did not introduce a new claim and were not time barred.

The claimant challenged its exclusion from a local authority procurement process for a long-term building-materials supply contract. It alleged that the authority had treated it less favourably than other tenderers in relation to parent company guarantees and performance bonds.

The claimant issued its claim form on 26 July 2013, after receiving information about other tenderers. The particulars of claim were served in early November 2013 following agreed stays and extensions. The preliminary issues concerned whether the brief details on the claim form covered the complaints later pleaded and, if not, whether those complaints were barred by the 30-day period in regulation 47D(2) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006.

The court answered the preliminary issues as follows:

1. The claimant had sufficient knowledge by 28 June 2013 that grounds for proceedings had arisen.
2. The claim form issued on 26 July 2013 was within the applicable 30-day period.
3. The claimant did not raise the relevant claim for the first time in the particulars of claim.
4. The pleaded claim was not time barred.

Under CPR Part 16.2, the claim form must contain a concise statement of the nature of the claim and specify the remedy sought. The rule is not prescriptive as to the precise words or separate sentences required. The court must read the wording overall and decide what claims it objectively conveys.

In construing the brief details, the court may consider the factual matrix. Relevant material may include correspondence and applications served at or about the time of the claim form, and, where appropriate, particulars of claim served with or shortly after it. Caution is required before relying on earlier communications, but they may be considered where they clearly show what proceedings were intended to address. This approach followed the contextual reasoning in Evans v Cig Mon Cymru Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 390.

The claim form expressly referred to the procurement, the governing Regulations, information supplied about other bidders, the failure to exclude those bidders, and remedies for breach of the Regulations and related obligations. The contemporaneous letters and stay application made the complaint about unequal treatment of bidders in relation to parent company guarantees and performance bonds unmistakable. The particulars therefore clarified and developed the claim rather than introducing a new cause of action.

The court applied the knowledge standard identified in Sita UK Ltd v Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority [2011] EWCA Civ 156. The Council was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of the preliminary issues, summarily assessed at £45,000, payable within 14 days.