Construction Projects in UK Law

The failure to comply with the regulations is an unlawful act, whether or not there is no economic operator who wishes to bring proceedings under reg 47, and thus a paradigm situation in which a public body should be subject to review by the court.

It is in Regulation 47H(2) that one finds what exercise the Court “must” do: it must consider whether, if regulation 47G(1) was not applicable, “it would be appropriate to make an interim order requiring the contracting authority to refrain from entering into the contract”; it then goes on to say that it is “only if the Court considers that it would not be appropriate to make such an interim order may it make an order under paragraph (1)(a)”.

This means that the employer cannot bring a second adjudication to determine the value of the work at the valuation date of the interim application in question. There is nothing to prevent the employer challenging the value of the work on the next application, even if he is contending for a figure that is lower than the (unchallenged) amount stated in the previous application.

But in construing such a contract one starts with the presumption that neither party intends to abandon any remedies for its breach arising by operation of law, and clear express words must be used in order to rebut this presumption.

If a construction contract is abandoned or terminated, the employer is in new territory for which the liquidated damages clause may not have made provision. It may be more logical and more consonant with the parties' bargain to assess the employer's total losses flowing from the abandonment or termination, applying the ordinary rules for assessing damages for breach of contract.

Accordingly, in deciding such claims, the court's function is a limited one. It is reviewing the decision solely to see whether or not there was a manifest error and/or whether the process was in some way unfair. The court is not undertaking a comprehensive review of the tender evaluation process; neither is it substituting its own view as to the merits or otherwise of the rival bids for that already reached by the public body.

Third, I agree with Mr. Anderson that it is not my task merely to embark on a re-marking exercise and to substitute my own view but to ascertain if there is a manifest error, which is not established merely because on mature reflection a different mark might have been awarded. Fourth the issue for me is to determine if the combination of manifest errors made by Newham in marking the tenders would have led to a different result.