Tesco v Constain - Thomson Reuters

2002 WL 347140 Page 92002 WL 347140 (QBD (T&CC)), [2002] EWHC 482(Publication page references are not available for this document.)HTA, PS) to agree strategy and meet regularly tooversee progress. (We urgently need to gettogether to discuss strategy).29. Mr. Hunt made contact with Mr. Springgayand they met on 16 October 1997. In a facsimiletransmission dated 20 October 1997 Mr. Huntconfirmed to Mr. Springgay that one of the mainconclusions from that meeting was:-1) Design team appointmentYou agreed the current situation is a seriousobstacle to progress (with 3 weeks of tightprogramme now elapsed) and undertook to agreeand document scope of service and terms ofappointment by the middle of this week (Copies offaxes dated 26 August, 2, 10 and 13 Octoberattached)30. The progress anticipated by Mr. Hunt in hisfacsimile transmission dated 20 October 1997 wasnot achieved. He sent a facsimile transmissiondated 27 October 1997 to Mr. Springgay whichincluded:-First, though, I should confirm our discussion midlast week. As regards Stage 3 (i.e. if we win) Iconfirmed the position as stated in my 26 Augustfax and agreed at my 16 September meeting withPaul and Richard at Moat. As regards the costs inthe current Stage 2, I confirmed our willingness todiscuss a reduction linked to a success bonus. Iimagine that the bonus would need to be say threetimes the amount of the cost reduction to makesense of this. N.B. It is important to recognise thatthe design team has already undertaken aconsiderable amount of work on spec, and that thecosts quoted for Stage 2 are already on a non-profitbasis. I await your response.31. On 28 October 1997 Mr. Hunt sent a further,hand-written, facsimile transmission to Mr.Springgay which included the comments that:-Members of the team must know whether they areappointed, and what role they have. We urgentlyneed a reply to my fax of yesterday. And asregards roles, following receipt of your Action Planyesterday I am completely unclear as to the role ofthe leader of the design team vs. the projectmanager.32. In a facsimile transmission to Mr. RichardCherry, Mr. Phipps and Mr. Cook dated 29 October1997 Mr. Hunt wrote:-I need to report to you that lack of resolution as towhether members of the design team are appointed,and if so in what capacity and on what commercialbasis, is now jeopardising the project.As requested by the development team on 11August I set out in my 26 August fax the basis onwhich we would be happy to undertake the project,including the need to formalise the appointment ofthe team before the start of (the current) Phase 3.Four weeks have now passed since the start ofPhase 3. Despite confirmation by me of youragreement to this basis in my faxes to Paul Phippsand Richard Cherry on 17 September, to PaulPhipps on 13 October, and numerous othercommunications the appointments have still notbeen formalised. This despite Paul Springgaysundertaking to me on 16 October to do so by themiddle of last week.The goodwill that the team has shown incommitting itself to the project is now wearingextremely thin. There is concern that if thesituation is allowed to drift any further, theconsequence will be either no formal design teamappointment, or else appointment on a basis lesssatisfactory than that which we have discussed overthe last two months neither of which is acceptable.HTA and TF & P are finally in a position tocommunicate our requirements for inputs from thedesign team, yet uncertainty over the fundamentalissue of appointment is jeopardising its ability torespond. We need to make rapid progress on allfronts and I have therefore requested the team tocontinue to allocate the necessary staff resources ona goodwill basis up to the end of this week to allowtime for us to agree heads of terms, with a view tofinalising formal appointments by 14 November.I hope you will agree the urgent need to resolvethis issue within the timeframe I have indicated andlook forward to working with you to do so.33. Contrary to what Mr. Hunt wrote in hisfacsimile transmission dated 29 October 1997, thethen current phase of the competition was 2, not 3.In Mr. Hunts usage, at any rate, there seemed to bea distinction between heads of terms, which wereof such a nature that they could be expected to beagreed relatively quickly, and formal appointments,which followed on from agreement of heads ofterms and took a little longer to agree.34. Under cover of a transmission sheet dated 3November 1997, upon which he wrote At last!, Mr.Springgay sent to Mr. Hunt a letter dated 3November 1997 in which was set out a lengthyproposal. Mr. Springgay, Mr. Richard Cherry andMr. Phipps all told me in evidence, which I accept,Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works