The case was brought by Rochford-based company James Waste Management. The company had worked with the council as part of a framework, where it was called upon as and when waste disposal requirements were needed.
When part of a framework in 2020 was awarded to Enovert to send material to landfill, it later had to be modified to allow Veolia to transport material to the site.
James Waste Management argued that this breached the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, while the council said the landfill site remains the most economically suitable disposal point.
In a ruling dated in May but highlighted by the council this morning, Mr Justice Waksman dismissed the company’s request for damages and ruled in favour of the council.
Landfill
At the centre of the claim is how the council undertook a ‘mini-competition’ in October 2020 to tender for short term waste disposal contracts.
The ‘mini-competition’ in question saw James Waste Management win lot 4 of the contract, on a zero-tonne basis but up to 75,000 tonnes per year of waste, with Enovert picking up Lots 1, 2 and 3 to take waste to its landfill site at Bellhouse, near Colchester.
However, in “early 2021”, this was modified to allow Veolia to transport material to the site in Colchester. This was signed in June, which meant the agreement with James Waste Management had continued. This was estimated to cost around £750,000 to modify.
The document explained: “On 18 June 2021 JW issued and served the present claim against the Council. However, it challenged both the Modification and the Enovert Service Order as both being unlawful.”
Ruling
The judge however dismissed the case, who said: “l fail to see how the Modification was such as to change the economic balance of the contract as a whole in favour of Veolia. I reach that conclusion regardless of the incidence of the burden of proof.
“Since I have concluded that the Modification did not constitute a substantial modification and the council only needs to pass through one of the gateways in Reg 72 (1) the result is that the modification did not constitute any breach of procurement law.”
‘Pleased’
An ECC spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the judge supported our position that we had not breached contracts regulations.
“We will always defend our position where appropriate and take every step to protect taxpayers’ money. We are therefore very pleased that the judge’s decision was in our favour and awarded us our costs.
“This result does not affect the collection of household waste across the county which will continue as normal.”
An initial request for permission to appeal was refused by the judge. The contractor could have further requested the right to appeal the judge’s decision but did not do so.
Subscribe for free