High Court trial over contracts
The High Court is to determine whether a former senior Far North District Council manager acted against good faith by refusing to award contracts to a Kaikohe earthworks and construction contractor.
A trial date has yet to be set. Rintoul Group is claiming damages from the council’s then general manager of infrastructure and asset management, Jacqueline Robson, over 17 unsuccessful bids for contracts over a two-year period, particularly a contract for the upgrade of the Waimatenui Rd bridge, in Kaikohe.
The company alleges Robson committed misfeasance in public office, or wrongful exercise of lawful authority, to ensure it would not be awarded any contracts.
Robson, who left the FNDC in September 2017 and now works in the private sector, partly succeeded in her application to the High Court for summary judgment and to strike out the Rintoul Group’s claim for misfeasance in public office.
In a separate proceeding last year, the company successfully sued the council for excluding it from four contracts for the Twin Coast Cycle Trail.
In the current case, Robson contends that she cannot be liable for wrongdoing because the council had sound, clear and transparent systems for awarding contracts that required tenders to be assessed objectively on their merits.
While she had a role in evaluating tenders, she generally did no more than act on recommendations of tender evaluation teams.
That is disputed by former infrastructure and capital works manager Casey de Pereira, who says all tender evaluation reports required her approval before contracts were awarded.
On one occasion, he said, Robson told him she was not going to give Rintoul Group another contract in relation to the cycle track, and in another case she refused to his recommendation for a contract to go to the company.
Robson’s evidence in reply, noted by Associate Judge Roger Bell, tried to undermine de Pereira’s testimony by referring to alleged unsatisfactory aspects of his employment, none of which was relevant. He found a clear conflict between the evidence of Robson and de Pereira that would be resolved at trial.
“I cannot say on this application that his evidence is so tenuous that it cannot be accepted as showing an evidential basis for Rintoul’s case,” he said.
“If his evidence as to the Waimatenui Rd bridge upgrade is accepted, it will also open the door for the other contracts for Rintoul.”
Although Robson’s case was impressive, and may prevail at trial, her difficulty was de Pereira’s evidence that pointed to intentional conduct by her in deciding the tender of the bridge upgrade.
Robson’s applications for strike out and summary judgment were struck out.