Local Government Lawyer Home Page

Sharpe Edge Webpage Banner

Welcome to Sharpe Edge, Sharpe Pritchard’s local government legal hub on Local Government Lawyer.

Sharpe Edge features news, views and analysis from our team of specialist local government lawyers working at the heart of the latest legal developments. Sharpe Edge platform is also the only place where local government lawyers can get e-access to two law books by our Head of Local Government Rob Hann: The Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers (‘LACAT’) and The Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships (‘LACAP’).



Slide background

Unlawful Award of Contract

Icons CourtThe High Court has ruled that the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Michael Gove, broke the law by giving a contract to a market research company, Public First, who are run by long-time associates of his. Anna Sidebottom, Francesca Gallagher and Clare Mendelle report.

The Good Law Project (GLP) issued a judicial review of the Government’s decision to directly award a contract for the provision of focus group and communications support services (“the Contract”) to Public First in relation to the Government’s COVID-19 policy.

Public First is a public policy research agency run by James Frayne and Rachel Wolf, both of whom previously worked with Dominic Cummings (Boris Johnson’s former advisor) and Michael Gove.

The Contract was issued without tender under emergency provisions. It was awarded to Public First on 5 June 2020, with retrospective effect from 3 March 2020.

The GLP argued that the decision to award the £560,000 contract to Public First was tainted by apparent bias contrary to principles of public law due to the agency’s personal links with Dominic Cummings. They also argued that there was no basis for making a direct award under Regulation 32(2)(c) of the PCR 2015 and that the award of the Contract for a period of 6 months was disproportionate.

The Cabinet Office defended the decision to not undertake a competitive tender process by relying on 32(2)(c), which states that in matters of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseeable events, prior publication of the opportunity is not necessary and that the award of the contract for six months was not disproportionate due to the scale of the national emergency the COVID-19 pandemic presented. They refuted the allegation of bias and said the decision to award the Contract was based on expertise, experience and availability to undertake the required specialist services within the urgent timescales.


The issues for the Court to decide were as follows:

  • Whether the Defendant was entitled to rely on Regulation 32(2)(c) of the PCR 2015 to make a direct award of the Contract without competition.
  • Whether the award of the Contract for a period of six months disproportionate.
  • Whether the decision to award the Contract to Public First gave rise to apparent bias.


Judgment was handed down on 9 June 2021, ruling that the decision to award the Contract to Public First gave rise to apparent bias and was unlawful.

With regard to GLP’s claims the judge found as follows:

Issue 1 – Defendant’s entitlement to rely on Regulation 32(2)(c)

The judge found that the conditions for making an award under Regulation 32(2)(c) were satisfied, and the Defendant was, therefore, entitled to award Public First the contract without a competitive tender. The reasons given were as follows:

  • The unforeseeable and extreme urgency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • The services performed under the Contract were required immediately to inform policy, strategy, and public communications in response to the pandemic.
  • It would not have been possible to comply with time limits for a conventional procurement given the timescales.
  • It was strictly necessary to procure the services under the Contract – failure to provide effective public health messaging would have put at risk the health of the public.

Issue 2 – Proportionality

The award of the Contract for a period of 6 months was not found to be a disproportionate for the reasons set out in relation to the first issue.

Issue 3 – Apparent bias

The judge found that, whilst there was an urgent need for the services provided under the Contract such that Regulation 32(2)(c) could properly be used, the fair minded and informed observer could conclude that there was a real possibility that the decision-maker was biased, because of the Government’s failure to consider any other research agency.

Whilst the existence of personal connections between Dominic Cummings and the directors of Public First did not preclude Mr Cummings from making an impartial assessment, the existence of such connections might be perceived to compromise their impartiality and independence in a public procurement context.


This ruling is the second successful legal challenge brought by the GLP against the Government in respect of pandemic-related procurements, the first having been brought against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Each has established that a Cabinet Minister – Matt Hancock and Michael Gove, respectively – acted unlawfully. The GLP has approximately a dozen further judicial reviews in the pipeline, so it will be very interesting to watch how these progress.

This case is a reminder to Contracting Authorities to guard against the appearance of (or actual) bias. A Contracting Authority will need to show that they approached the decision with an open mind, which can be done by:

  • Considering other providers, even in the context of a Regulation 32(2)(c) procurement.
  • Where there are personal connections, working within their Authority’s code of conduct with regards to declarations of interest, and keeping a clear paper trail of their contact and conduct; and
  • Providing training to staff (even up to Government Ministers) on issues of actual bias, apparent bias, and predetermination.

Anna Sidebottom is a Trainee Solicitor, Francesca Gallagher is a paralegal and Clare Mendelle a professional support lawyer at Sharpe Pritchard LLP

For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.

sharpe edge 600x100

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

LACAT BookFREE download!

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers

Written and edited by Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government, Rob Hann,

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers covers:

• Updated charging powers compendium          • Commercial trading options

• Teckal ‘public to public’                                    • Localism Act


LACAT BookAvailable to buy:

A Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships

An invaluable, comprehensive toolkit for lawyers, law firms and others advising
on or participating in Local Authority Companies and Partnerships”

- Local Authority Chief Executive


  More Articles

<a href=

Levelling up – A new opportunity for further devolution in England?

Rob Hann explores the Government's 'levelling up' policy and looks at whether it is an opportunity for further devolution in England.
<a href=

Time limits for commencing proceedings in procurement challenges

Colin Ricciardiello discusses a landmark procurement challenge judgment on the time limit for commencing proceedings.
Icons Hazard

The Revised National Planning Policy Framework: Better design, greener outcomes?

Alastair Lewis and Sarah Wertheim outline the latest National Planning Policy Framework changes and explain how future developments will be impacted by the new rules.
<a href=

Loose talk costs money: Oral agreement to forego liquidated damages was valid

Michael Comba outlines and analyses a contract dispute resolution: Mansion Place Ltd v Fox Industrial Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 2972 (TCC)
<a href=

Procurement reform – an update

Radhika Devesher and Natasha Barlow provide a summary of the proposed and enacted changes to the UK procurement regime post-Brexit.
Icons Court

The Public Procurement Review Service Report: Procurement Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Juli Lau and Beth Edwards examine some of the most common procurement pitfalls and provide a checklist of points for local authorities to bear in mind in order to avoid costly errors.
<a href=

JCT Dispute Adjudication Board Rules: a case of “three’s a crowd”?

Peter Jansen who specialises in construction law and dispute resolution, examines the roles and functions of the JCT’s Dispute Adjudication Board and highlights some key considerations for parties planning to adopt the Rules in their JCT contracts.
<a href=

The Electric Vehicle Revolution or…

Emily Knowles discusses new legislation on the requirement of electric vehicle charging points, and its potential impact on the Electric Vehicle Revolution.
<a href=

Consultation on the Electronic Communications Code – What’s Changing?

Lillee Reid-Hunt outlines the legislative changes to the Electronic Communications Code.
Icons Court

You Must Adjudicate First NEC3 imposes obligation to adjudicate first before commencing court proceedings.

Michael Comba discusses NEC3 imposing an obligation to adjudicate first before commencing court proceedings.
Icons Court

Rocking aground the Christmas tree

Clare Mendelle and George Dale discuss and solve a common construction scenario, looking at the position under the Contract, and how the Employer should deal with the Contractor's request.
Icons Hazard

Adequacy Decision Granted to the UK

Charlotte Smith considers two recent adequacy decisions and explains how this affects existing data practices.
<a href=

Managing employees with long COVID and employees who have anxiety about returning to the office

Julie Bann and Victoria Smith consider how Long Covid may be treated under existing employment laws and provide compliance guidance for employers.
<a href=

Environment Act 2021: What Does it Mean for Waste Authorities?

Sally Stock, Juli Lau, Ellen Painter and Beth Edwards discuss notable changes made to the Environment Bill 2021-2022, which received Royal Assent on the 9th November.
<a href=

ESG and its relevance to the public sector

Peter Collins and Sydney Chandler discuss the growing importance of Environmental, Social, and Governance criteria in public procurement.
<a href=

JCT 101: Time and Punishment

Rachel Murray-Smith, Clare Mendelle and Laura Campbell discuss a common Construction scenario regarding the Practical Completion of a project, and the position under the unamended JCT DB 2016.
Icons Court

The importance of due process, communication and fairness in employee conduct investigations – what you need to know.

Julie Bann and James Hughes discuss the importance of fairness in employee conduct investigations, taking a look at the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham -v- Mr S Keable case.
<a href=

Becoming More Inclusive: VAT and Public Procurement

Juli Lau, Natasha Barlow and Beth Edwards examine the recently published Public Procurement Regulations 2021, focussing upon amendments to the thresholds within various procurement regimes.
<a href=

The LADs are Alright

Laura Campbell discusses liquidated damages in construction contracts, focussing upon the long-running Triple Point saga which ended in the Supreme Court this year.
<a href=

Procurement Policy Note 08/21

Juli Lau and Beth Edwards outline Procurement Policy Note 08/21, recently published by the Cabinet office.
Icons Court

Hard Times: Improving Air Quality with Clean Air Zones

Rob Hann and James Goldthorpe examine the introduction of Clean Air Zones to improve air quality across the UK.
<a href=

Autumn Budget Spending Review 2021 – What Public Bodies Need To Know

Rob Hann and James Hughes examine the Autumn Budget Spending Review 2021, looking at what Public Bodies need to know.
<a href=

Net Zero – What’s new for local authorities?

Steve Gummer and Sophie Drysdale look at two major climate publications: the Heat and Buildings Strategy and the Net Zero Strategy.
Icons Hazard

Jumping to conclusions: Final Statements, liquidated damages and material breaches of natural justice

Michael Comba looks at a recent Technology and Construction Court case that provides useful guidance on the JCT’s procedural requirements on disputing Final Statements.
Icons Court

Three times one equals one: Several disputed payment applications amount to a single dispute

Michael Comba considers a case in which the High Court dismissed an employer’s argument that an adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the referral concerned three separate payment applications and, therefore, comprised three separate disputes.
<a href=

Warm feelings or hot air: the Heat and Buildings Strategy and Heat Networks

This week the government published its Heat and Buildings Strategy (Strategy). This contained vital innovations and essential step changes in terms of how heating is provided, writes Steve Gummer.
<a href=

Procurement reforms: update from Cabinet Office

Rob Hann, Nicola Sumner and Juli Lau assess the Cabinet Office's update on the progress of the government's public procurement reforms.
Icons Court

Bond, Performance Bond. Delivering value for the Public Sector?

Justin Mendelle examines whether public sector clients achieve value for money from the provision of performance bonds.
Icons Hazard

Not so personal messages: R. (on the application of Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Abingdon Health Plc [2021] EWHC 2595 (TCC)

Nicola Sumner, Juli Lau and Beth Edwards look at The Good Law Project's challenge of the direct award by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of three contracts for the production and supply of rapid Covid-19 antibody tests (the “Contracts”).
<a href=

Insolvency – Termination and Beyond

Rachel Murray-Smith and Clare Mendelle consider the potential warning signs of, and the compliant manner for dealing with, contractor insolvency.
Icons Court

Settlement agreements – waiving Personal Injury claims

In the case of Farnham-Oliver v RM Educational Resources LTD, the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court allowed a Personal Injury claim (“PI claim”) to be pursued by an employee against his former employer despite the parties signing a Settlement Agreement in respect of an Employment Tribunal claim on the same issue. Julie Bann and James Hughes report.
Icons Hazard

Mandatory Vaccination for Care Home Workers in England – Update

Rachel Murray-Smith and Francesca Gallagher look at the detail of the government's guidance on compulsory vaccination for care staff.
<a href=

Make your mind up! Liquidated Damages clause upheld despite Employer’s challenge

In the recent case of Eco World Ballymore (EWB) v Dobler[1] , an Employer took the unusual position of challenging their own entitlement to liquidated damages (LDs) on the ground that the LDs provision constituted an unenforceable penalty clause. Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe investigate.
<a href=

Are Collateral Warranties Construction Contracts? Timing is Key.

Clare Mendelle and Anna Sidebottom examine the recently decided case of Toppan v Simply[1], which has provided guidance on when collateral warranties may be considered “construction contracts” under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and so give the warranty holder the right to adjudicate.
Icons Court

Climate emergency or climate catastrophe?

Rob Hann asks how central & local government departments and councils can work together more effectively to combat the challenges to achieve net zero by 2050.
Slide background