E-Nik Ltd v Department for Communities And Local Government

Mr Gerard Rothschild (instructed by Manches LLP) for the Claimant Mr Mathew Gullick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant Hearing date: 12 October 2012 ____________________

The only other relevant provision not referred to above is in fact contained in Appendix 2 to the Fujitsu Agreement, and it provides:

Issue 1: Does Clause 2.1 of the Contract mean (as the Defendant contends) that, insofar as the Defendant's project requirements did not require at least 500 days of consultancy services, there was no obligation on the Defendant to purchase a minimum of 500 days of consultancy services from the Claimant? If it does, is the Defendant estopped from so contending.

Issue 2: Is the minimum of 500 days per year referred to in Clause 2.1 of the Contract to be pro-rated to 250 days for the period 1 April 2011 to 30 September 2011 (as the Claimant contends)?

Issue 3: Was the rate of �850 per day in Clause 2.3 of the Contract payable in return for the Claimant making its consultancy services available up to any such minimum level, whether or not the Defendant specifically demanded or made use of such services so as to give rise to a claim in debt (as the Claimant contends), or is no such claim in debt maintainable (as the Defendant contends)?