But lawyers for the council claim Judge Hegarty's ruling was wrong in law, and brought their case to the Court of Appeal in London last week (October 21).
Three judges have now reserved judgement in the case, meaning Merseyside-based EWC will have to wait to find out whether they are entitled to a huge payout.
The enormously costly legal battle, which has already dragged on for more than two years, revolves around a decision by the county council to award a three-year contract to run recycling depots, thought to be worth more than £20 million, to waste giant SITA UK Ltd in 2007.
Judge Hegarty found that the county council had wrongly taken sub-concious account of financial information relating to EWC during the “two-horse race” for the contract.
He added that one of the council officers involved in the decision making process, John Birch, was “likely to have been subconciously influenced” by the information he received.
And he ruled that, whilst there was no “manifest error” on the part of the council, there had been “a breach of duty” because of its “failure to observe the principles of equality, non-discrimination and transparency” in the tendering process.
Rhodri Williams QC, representing the county council, appealed against the decision today on the grounds that the judge had applied the wrong legal test.
He said the judge's finding that the financial information was “likely to have been a subconcious” influence on Mr Birch was not solid enough ground on which to rule against Lancashire.
But EWC, based in Knowsley, insists the judge got it right.
Representing the company, Robert Jay QC, argued that Judge Hegarty ought to have found that “Mr Birch conciously took its (EWC's) financial standing into account, not in the sense that he did so deliberately or in bad faith but rather in the sense that financial standing operated on his concious mind despite his honest endeavour to prevent it.”
EWC also say they would have been in line to get a two-year extension if they had landed the three-year deal, and want judges to allow them to sue for those damages as well.
Costs
If Lancashire loses the appeal, it could also be liable to pay the estimated £250,000 legal costs EWC has racked up in the protracted dispute.
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Jackson and Lord Justice Patten reserved their judgement, meaning the matter will be decided in the next three months.
Speaking outside court, EWC chairman, Bill Edwards, said if the judges did throw out Lancashire's appeal, his company would pursue its damages claim against the councill “as soon as possible”.
He added that his company would be looking for between £3 million and £5 million in damages.
Register for free to comment