header-logo header-logo

23 July 2021 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7942 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Public procurement: He knew he was right…

53329
Nicholas Dobson reports on Cabinet Office procurement decisions found unlawful through apparent bias
  • A fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was apparent bias by the Cabinet Office when it appointed a research agency without considering other potential competitors.

The prime minister’s former adviser, Dominic Cummings, is not noted for excessive constraint or diffidence in his public pronouncements. So, commenting on vaccine deployment, he tweeted about his ‘rushed instructions on how to change Vaccine Taskforce from another Hancock shitshow to low-friction-fast-decisions success’. Among the instructions was that: ‘…we need treatments by autumn, not powerpoints and meetings for months’ and ‘no usual bullshit and processes…’.

Cummings was consequently quick off the Twitter mark when Mrs Justice O’Farrell in the Technology and Construction Court found on 9 June 2021 in R (on the application of Good Law Project) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2021] EWHC 1569 (TCC) that his recommended Cabinet Office appointment of Public First (PF)—an agency specialising in opinion research on complex public policy issues—was unlawful through

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll