UK: UK Public Procurement Law Digest: Cost Awards In UK Public Procurement Claims

Last Updated: 13 April 2012
Article by Alistair Maughan

Two of the main factors which typically influence a decision by an aggrieved bidder whether or not to raise a bid protest in the UK courts are costs and damage to future reputation. While the reputational stigma in the government market of being seen as a complainant seems set to remain as intangible as ever, there is now guidance from the UK courts as to how the issue of costs will be dealt with if an aggrieved bidder is successful – or, more likely, partly successful – in a procurement claim.

This edition of the MoFo UK Public Procurement Law Digest explains the approach adopted by the court in Mears v. Leeds County Council, where the aggrieved bidder was successfully awarded damages for a breach of the procurement regulations but had its costs award scaled down significantly because it had not prevailed on other key claims.

When considered alongside the apparent difficulties faced by bidders in persuading courts to set aside improperly awarded contracts, the costs rules increase the incentive on an aggrieved bidder to focus its case around the claims that it stands the strongest chance of winning. Set-aside claims are increasingly seen as hard to win in UK courts; and defeat in a set-aside claim brings a double-whammy effect of both losing the most effective remedy and downgrading the likely costs award in respect of other, more "winnable" claims. This means that, more than ever, claimants need to be doubly sure of success before going ahead with an application for set-aside.


The Mears v. Leeds County Council case arose out of a procurement exercise by Leeds City Council ("Leeds") that began in October 2009 in relation to the improvement and refurbishment of social housing in the Leeds area.

Although Mears Limited ("Mears") was originally selected to tender, in July 2010 it was informed that its tender had been unsuccessful and that it would not be taken through to the next stage of the procurement. Mears brought a claim under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 ("PCR") alleging that Leeds had not acted transparently or treated Mears equally and in a non-discriminatory way.

Mears brought a range of different claims, some of which were ruled, at a High Court hearing in December 2010, to be out-of-time and were therefore struck out. Other claims were deemed to be valid, and eventually, in April 2011, the High Court ruled that Leeds had breached the PCR by failing to disclose weightings contained in an evaluation table and had applied certain award criteria or sub-criteria improperly which could have adversely affected the preparation of Mears' tender to Leeds. The court also found that, had this breach not occurred, there was a real and significant chance that Mears would have been successful in being selected to participate in the next stage of the tender procedure. The court concluded that the appropriate remedy in this case was damages and awarded those damages in Mears' favour.

However, crucially, Mears had also claimed the ineffectiveness remedy provided under the PCR1 and had asked the court to set aside the procurement process and force Leeds to start again2. The court weighed the balance of convenience and concluded that the prejudice in terms of the housing arrangements for a significant number of people (and the consequent delay in the provision of those arrangements) outweighed any impropriety in the procurement process. It therefore refused to grant the remedy of set-aside and told Mears that damages would be a sufficient remedy.

Subsequently, Mears sought an order for costs in its favour. Leeds resisted that claim and, indeed, argued that Mears should, in fact, pay the significant majority of Leeds' own costs.

The bad news for Mears was that even though it proved its case on procurement irregularity and succeeded in getting a damages award, the court reduced the costs award by 65% to take account of the fact that it had also made a claim for set-aside which had been rejected.

Mears' costs were estimated at £145,000 plus VAT; Leeds' costs were higher, at £217,000 plus VAT.


The court provided a very helpful summary of the approach that ought to be taken to costs in English law cases generally but specifically in the procurement context. A number of key principles applied:

  1. In litigation where each party has a claim and alleges that a balance is owing in its favour, the party which ends up receiving payment should generally be characterised as the overall "winner" of the action.
  2. When a court considers how to exercise its discretion to award costs, the court should take as a starting point the general rule that the successful party is entitled to an order for payment of its costs.
  3. The judge also needs to consider what departures are required from that starting point, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
  4. If the parties are successful on different issues, the judge should consider whether to make an issue-based costs order or make a proportionate costs order.
  5. In considering the circumstances of the case, judges should have regard to any offers made during the course of proceedings but also to each party's approach to negotiations and the general conduct of litigation (e.g., whether any claims made were futile or not reasonably brought).

Mears claimed that it ought to be seen as the overall "winner" of the case because it had obtained judgement for damages on at least part of its claim, despite a strong defence by Leeds. By contrast, Leeds also claimed that it was the successful party because it had succeeded in striking out some of Mears' claims and the court had refused to grant the set-aside remedy.

Overall, the court decided that the right starting point was that Mears was the successful party because it had, in fact, obtained a judgement against the authority for damages to be assessed. It also said that, although Leeds was successful in its defences on some claims (and particularly in relation to the set-aside claim), it was not successful in defending the claim on which Mears eventually succeeded. Accordingly, the court applied the general rule that Mears, as a successful claimant, should have its costs paid by the authority.

The court then went on to discuss the conduct of each party as relevant to the application of this general principle. In this case, the court concluded that there was nothing particularly in the conduct of the parties which would affect its discretion on costs.

Leeds had argued that Mears was unreasonable in pressing ahead with the set-aside claim. The court disagreed. The judge felt that Mears was not unreasonable in pursuing the set-aside remedy – but the fact remained that Mears lost on that part of the claim, which was one on which the parties had spent considerable time and incurred significant costs.

The court also addressed various issues raised by Leeds as to whether Mears had appropriately made a number of claims. The court agreed with Mears that it was not unreasonable for Mears to have raised those claims even though the court may have eventually concluded that the claims were time-barred and may have been weak.

In the key part of its judgement, the court looked at the relative success and failure of the parties on particular issues that arose in the case. Mears had succeeded on one aspect of the claim and failed on others. Accordingly, the court decided that the right approach was to make a proportionate costs order to reflect the extent to which Mears had not been selective in its claims. So, Mears should not recover all of its costs. Considerable time and effort was spent on claims on which Mears was unsuccessful, so the court felt it inequitable that the claimant should recover its costs for dealing with those claims.

However, the court also noted that there was no obvious formula for establishing the percentage of costs payable based on the number of issues, pages of evidence, or paragraphs of submissions or judgements. The decision is, to some extent, impressionistic based upon the judge's knowledge of the case. The court took as a starting point the costs on claims where Mears had been successful together with the so-called "common costs" that Mears had to spend to bring the proceedings.

Eventually, the court concluded that the costs payable to Mears should be discounted by 65% to reflect the significant costs that related to issues on which the authority succeeded whilst still balancing this against the fact that, overall, Mears was properly characterised as the successful party. Accordingly, Mears was granted a costs order for 35% of its costs of the action, assessed on a standard basis.


This case reinforces a concern for all aggrieved bidders who may be considering a claim under the PCR. Many aggrieved bidders shy away from formally mounting a claim because of the potential reputational hit they may take in any future bids to government (i.e., the concern at being seen as a "troublemaker" who would bring a claim against a government department). The stigma associated with bringing procurement claims in the UK has still not gone away despite the existence for the past three or more years of a much more liberal procurement remedies regime.

On a more practical and tangible level, costs issues also remain a concern for claimants. There is always a temptation amongst claimants to try as many claims as possible in the hope that one will stick. In particular, since the liberalisation of the remedies regime, the remedy of ineffectiveness (i.e., "set-aside") is particularly appealing as it's seen as something that would correct many of the inequities brought about by an improper procurement process. However, as we have previously reported3, the barriers to a successful award of set-aside are high and it's a remedy that is relatively rarely granted. As in this case, a court is required to balance the improprieties of the procurement process against the wider impact that an order to recommence the procurement process would have. Generally speaking, authorities have been much more successful in defending claims for set-aside than claimants have been in achieving set-aside.

Against this background, the costs impact is significant. Mears was successful in being awarded damages (which is arguably a much less useful remedy than set-aside anyway) and had its costs reduced by 65% because it wasn't successful in the larger set-aside claim. This is an issue which claimants need to take into account when deciding what claims to raise and, in particular, if there are any concerns to the weakness of particular claims, it is a reminder that claimants need to be very careful to prioritise only the main claims.

For a copy of Morrison & Foerster's consolidated digest of recent cases and decisions affecting UK public procurement law, please click here.


1 For an overview of the regime introduced by the New Remedies Directive and its UK implementation measures, namely the amendments to the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006 and the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, see our January 2010 Update: New Public Procurement Remedies in the UK.

2 For an analysis of the difficulties in persuading courts to grant the remedy of set-aside/ineffectiveness, see our August 2011 Update: The Elusiveness of the Remedy of Ineffectiveness.

3 See our August 2011 Update: The Elusiveness of the Remedy of Ineffectiveness.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Alistair Maughan
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.