Nuclear Decommissioning Authority v EnergySolutions EU Ltd (now called ATK Energy EU Ltd)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 кві 2017
- [2017] UKSC 34
UKSC 2016/0006
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (Appellant) v EnergySolutions EU Ltd (now called ATK Energy EU Ltd) (Respondent)
On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)
The issues in this case are whether, in a claim for damages under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, the Francovich condition that the infringement be "sufficiently serious" must be met; and whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent's failure to issue proceedings before the contract was concluded did not break the chain of causation between the breach and the loss.
The respondent brought a public procurement law claim against the appellant, a non-departmental public body, for damages of c.$100m, alleging breaches of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 in connection with its unsuccessful bid for a contract for services to decommission nuclear sites. The following preliminary issues regarding the circumstances in which damages may be recoverable for breaches of the 2006 Regulations arose for consideration: (i) whether the Remedies Directive only requires a damages award to be made when any breach of the PP Directive is “sufficiently serious”; (ii) whether reg.47J(2)(c) of the 2006 Regulations confers a power to award damages in respect of any loss or damage suffered by an economic operator in the case of any breach (not merely a “sufficiently serious” breach) of the Regulations; and (iii) whether (and, if so, when) a damages award under reg.47J(2)(c) of the 2006 Regulations may be refused on the basis that an economic operator issued proceedings within the 30-day period provided by reg.47D, but not before the contracting authority entered into the contract. The Court of Appeal determined these issues to the following effect: (i) Yes; (ii) Yes; and (iii) No. The NDA appeals to the Supreme Court on issues (ii) and (iii).
The Supreme Court allows the NDA’s appeal on issue (ii) but dismisses it on issue (iii).
