Atos IT Services UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Proceedings may be consolidated where they concern the same parties and transaction, raise substantially overlapping issues, and seek materially identical relief. The court should consider the overriding objective, the need to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, and the saving of time and costs. Consolidation is particularly appropriate where separate claims cross-refer to one another and efficient case management requires the dispute to be considered as a whole.

Atos challenged the lawfulness of a procurement by the Met Office for a new weather and climate super-computer. Four claims were issued at different times, partly to preserve the applicable limitation periods. They alleged overlapping breaches concerning the evaluation of Atos’s and Microsoft’s tenders, equal treatment, transparency, compliance with procurement requirements and subsequent contractual modifications. Earlier orders had provided for Claims 1 and 2 to be case managed together and for a trial of liability and causation. The issue was whether Claims 1 to 4 should be consolidated.

1. Consolidation ordered. Claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 were consolidated, with consolidated pleadings to follow.
2. Under CPR 1.1, the court must deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. Relevant considerations include the amount and importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the parties’ financial positions, expedition, fairness and the appropriate use of court resources.
3. Section 49(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 requires the court, so far as possible, to determine all matters in dispute completely and finally and to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.
4. The power in CPR 3.1(2)(g) permits the court to consolidate two or more claims so that they proceed as one claim. Consolidation can save substantial time and costs and can enable the court to understand and manage the dispute efficiently and fairly.
5. The four claims concerned the same parties, procurement and legal representation. Although they alleged different breaches, each concerned the evaluation and treatment of competing tenders, Atos’s disqualification and the award to Microsoft. The relief sought was essentially the same, including declarations of unlawfulness, a declaration that Atos should have received the contract and relief concerning the Microsoft contract.
6. The pleadings and supporting documents disclosed significant overlap in liability and causation, including express cross-references. It would therefore be inefficient and clumsy to try only Claims 1 and 2 without first considering Claims 3 and 4. The court deferred decisions on the trial timetable and further directions to the next hearing.

Not an appeal. The judgment records earlier case-management orders by Eyre J and Kerr J concerning Claims 1 and 2, but no appellate decision.