Bromcom Computers Plc v Academies Enterprise Trust

A request for further information under Part 18 may concern matters broader than those formally pleaded, provided they remain matters in dispute in the proceedings. A party’s own statement of case, verified by a statement of truth, may place a matter in issue even where the party later seeks to amend or withdraw the relevant pleading. The request must still be concise and strictly confined to information reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable the requesting party to prepare its case or understand the case it must meet. Information concerning earlier transactions may therefore be ordered where the claimant itself relies on those transactions on causation. Such a request is not a fishing expedition merely because the information would not ordinarily be relevant.

The claimant challenged the defendant’s award of a management information system contract under the G-C 12 Framework Agreement. The claim included allegations concerning the lawfulness of the framework and the defendant’s particular evaluation process. The defendant pleaded that, even if a weighted evaluation had been required, the claimant could not have succeeded.

In reply, the claimant asserted that it had previously succeeded in lawful procurements under the framework where price was weighted with other criteria. The claimant later indicated that it would amend its pleadings to remove that assertion. The defendant nevertheless sought further information about the earlier procurements under Part 18, including the contracting authorities, contracts, evaluation criteria, weightings and scores. The central issue was whether those requests concerned matters in dispute and were reasonably necessary and proportionate.

1. Application granted in part. The defendant was entitled to further information under Part 18 concerning the earlier procurements, limited to questions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 and 1.11. The wider mop-up request, question 2, was refused because it went beyond a genuinely supplementary request, particularly question 2.4.
2. The threshold requirement that a request concern a matter in dispute was satisfied. Although information about other call-off processes would ordinarily be immaterial, the claimant had positively asserted, in a statement of case verified by a statement of truth, that it had previously succeeded in lawful awards using weighted criteria. That assertion was advanced to support the claimant’s case on causation and therefore placed the matter in issue. The issue remained relevant despite the proposed amendment, because its relevance arose from the claimant’s own case rather than merely from the formal existence of the pleading (paras 16–18, 29).
3. The separate requirement in paragraph 1.2 of the Practice Direction to Part 18 was also satisfied. In the particular circumstances, it was reasonably necessary for the defendant to know the relevant earlier procurements and, if within the claimant’s knowledge, the criteria, weightings and scores, so that it could prepare its case and understand the case it had to meet (paras 19–21).
4. The request was not a fishing expedition. The information sought was connected to an issue the claimant itself had introduced into the proceedings. The court nevertheless confined the order to the identified questions and declined to determine the broader estoppel arguments.
5. The judge observed, without deciding the point, that she had considerable difficulty with the likely success of proposed estoppel arguments based on the claimant’s previous contracts or on an alleged agreement not to challenge the particular procurement (paras 23–28). Permission to appeal was refused.