The remedy of ineffectiveness is only available in a limited number of circumstances (and the courts are not entitled to grant an order in all breaches of the Regulations), but contract award without prior advertisement is one of them. The effect of the decision is to declare the contract (prospectively) ineffective. This is different from declaring it null and void from the outset, and means that performance of all future rights and obligations must cease. That, of course, can leave a contractual nightmare where some obligations have already been performed and may require to be paid for, whilst future obligations just fall away.
The case is likely to result in more attention being paid to the potential remedy and potentially the need to agree a separate contract at the outset which sets out the parties' intentions, should the main contract later be declared ineffective. These obligations could cover the usual exit management obligations such as supply of TUPE information and transfer of Intellectual Property Licences, but may also go further and provide for compensation payments being made to the exiting provider who may, by that time, have committed substantial resources to the contract and entered into supply chain agreements.
Where an ineffectiveness order is granted, the Court is also obliged to fine the contracting authority. At the moment the level of the fine in this case has not been fixed, but it is obviously a concern for authorities in times of austerity, especially taken together with potential compensation payments to the exiting provider as well as potential damages to the challenger.
Inverclyde Council were granted leave to appeal and, for now, the ineffective contract limps on until that appeal has been dealt with.
