The three appellants each challenged decisions refusing their homelessness reviews, saying that the decisions had been made by outside contractors and were unlawful.
Held: The company was a subsidiary of the Council, and the Teckal exception clearly applied because of the Council’s control: ‘the focus must be on the nature of the arrangements between the two entities as constituted by the contractual and other documentation, and these have not changed (c.f. Parking Brixen). It is the presence, or absence, of salient features in these arrangements which will determine whether or not a procurement exercise should have been implemented . .’
Articles About The Case