Riverside Truck Rental Ltd v Lancashire County Council

Under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, a breach which causes loss or a risk of loss is actionable when the economic operator knows, or ought to know, the facts indicating the infringement. Time does not generally await the award of the contract or knowledge of the likely value of the claim. Different breaches in one procurement may attract different starting dates.

An extension under regulation 92(4) requires a good reason, assessed against the policy of rapid procurement challenges. Commercial considerations, prompt action after expiry, absence of prejudice and the arguable merits are not, without more, good reasons. Judicial review claims remain subject to the court’s broader power to extend time, but the same public procurement context and any prejudice to affected parties remain important.

The claimant’s tender for the supply and maintenance of vehicles for a council-owned waste-processing company was rejected as non-compliant because its cab did not provide the specified standing height. The contract was awarded to Monks Contractors Ltd.

The claimant issued both a procurement claim under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and a judicial review claim challenging its disqualification and the award. Both claims were issued after the applicable time limits. The central issues were when time began to run, whether the court had power to extend time, and whether an extension should be granted.

1. Procurement claim. The claim was out of time. Under regulations 91 and 92 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, a breach is actionable once it causes loss or a risk of loss. The claimant need not await the conclusion of the procurement or know the eventual value of the lost opportunity. Different breaches may have different dates for accrual and knowledge.
2. The claimant knew, or ought to have known, of the alleged deficiencies in the tender requirements by 25 September 2019, and of the rejection-based breaches by 29 November 2019. The later disclosure of Monks’s tender price affected the commercial value of the claim, not the date on which the cause of action arose. Authorities concerning final decisions in judicial review proceedings could not be transposed to a procurement claim for damages.
3. An extension under regulation 92(4) requires a good reason, considered in light of the deliberately short procurement time limits. The categories are not closed, but the relevant reason will ordinarily concern the claimant’s ability to issue. The Christmas period, attempts to negotiate, lack of information about the likely value, prompt action after expiry, the defendant’s correspondence, public-interest arguments, absence of prejudice and the arguable merits did not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a good reason.
4. Judicial review claim. CPR rule 54.5(6) governs the time for filing but does not remove or narrow the general power under CPR rule 3.1(2)(a) to extend time. That power required consideration of the objective excuse for delay, prejudice to the defendant or third parties, and the public interest, including the competing interest in speedy resolution of procurement disputes.
5. There was no reasonable objective excuse. The defendant’s letter expressing no objection in principle to an extension was limited and did not cause the delay. Monks had incurred expenditure and arranged staff and vehicles in reliance on the contract, creating a real risk of prejudice. Neither claim was therefore extended and both applications failed.

This was a first-instance decision determining applications for extensions of time in a procurement claim and a transferred judicial review claim. No appellate history was stated.