Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council [1990]
Share
Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] EWCA Civ 13 revolved around an invitation to tender for a licence to operate aircraft from Blackpool Airport. The Blackpool Borough Council invited tenders from several organisations, including the Aero Club, for the licence to operate light and heavy aircraft from the airport. The instructions were to submit tenders to the Town Hall by a specified deadline.
The Aero Club submitted a bid before the deadline, placing it in the Town Hall's letterbox an hour prior to the specified time. However, due to the Town Clerk's staff not emptying the letterbox at the stipulated time, the Aero Club's submission was considered late. As a result, the licence was granted to another bidder, Red Rose Helicopters.
Upon realising the error in the timing of the Aero Club's submission, the Council sought to rectify the situation by declaring the previous round of tenders invalid and inviting new tenders. However, Red Rose Helicopters, citing contractual obligations, asserted their right to the licence. Consequently, the Council withdrew the invitation for new tenders and proceeded with Red Rose Helicopters.
The case was brought before the High Court and then the Court of Appeal. Bingham LJ, delivering the leading judgment, emphasised that in a tendering process like this, where tenders are invited from selected parties under specific conditions, there is an implicit understanding that if a conforming tender is submitted before the deadline, it will be considered along with others.
Bingham LJ highlighted that while the invitation to tender did not explicitly state that the Council would consider timely and conforming tenders, the circumstances implied such an understanding. He emphasised that in this context, a reasonable invitee would expect their tender to be considered if submitted on time and meeting the specified criteria.
The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Aero Club, stating that the Council, by inviting tenders under clear and specific conditions, implied a contractual obligation to consider conforming tenders submitted before the deadline.
Stocker LJ, concurring with Bingham LJ, emphasised that the format and requirements of the tender invitation document itself suggested a legal obligation to consider tenders submitted by compliant operators before making any award of the concession.
The Court of Appeal upheld that in the circumstances of this case, there was an implied contractual obligation that the Aero Club's conforming tender would be considered before a decision was made or any other tender accepted.
The Aero Club submitted a bid before the deadline, placing it in the Town Hall's letterbox an hour prior to the specified time. However, due to the Town Clerk's staff not emptying the letterbox at the stipulated time, the Aero Club's submission was considered late. As a result, the licence was granted to another bidder, Red Rose Helicopters.
Upon realising the error in the timing of the Aero Club's submission, the Council sought to rectify the situation by declaring the previous round of tenders invalid and inviting new tenders. However, Red Rose Helicopters, citing contractual obligations, asserted their right to the licence. Consequently, the Council withdrew the invitation for new tenders and proceeded with Red Rose Helicopters.
The case was brought before the High Court and then the Court of Appeal. Bingham LJ, delivering the leading judgment, emphasised that in a tendering process like this, where tenders are invited from selected parties under specific conditions, there is an implicit understanding that if a conforming tender is submitted before the deadline, it will be considered along with others.
Bingham LJ highlighted that while the invitation to tender did not explicitly state that the Council would consider timely and conforming tenders, the circumstances implied such an understanding. He emphasised that in this context, a reasonable invitee would expect their tender to be considered if submitted on time and meeting the specified criteria.
The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Aero Club, stating that the Council, by inviting tenders under clear and specific conditions, implied a contractual obligation to consider conforming tenders submitted before the deadline.
Stocker LJ, concurring with Bingham LJ, emphasised that the format and requirements of the tender invitation document itself suggested a legal obligation to consider tenders submitted by compliant operators before making any award of the concession.
The Court of Appeal upheld that in the circumstances of this case, there was an implied contractual obligation that the Aero Club's conforming tender would be considered before a decision was made or any other tender accepted.
