New Zealand: Lab Tests Wins Back Lab Services Contract

Last Updated: 3 November 2008
Article by Brian Bray

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal has quashed the decision of the High Court which invalidated not only the decision of the Auckland Regional District Health Boards (ARDHBs) to award the contract to provide primary referred pathology services to Lab Tests but also the contract itself which was due to commence on 1 July 2007.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that Lab Tests' contract be reinstated and that it commence to supply services under its contract for the remainder of the term. Having said that, Diagnostic Medlab Limited (DML) has indicated that it is considering seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The decision is a rejection of what the Court of Appeal described as a broad based 'probity in public decision-making approach' and is a return to the more traditional approach to judicial review. It will provide board members of public sector organisations, procurement managers and their advisers with a greater degree of certainty around their procurement and tendering processes where commercial contracts are involved, and will hopefully reduce the ability of an unsuccessful tenderer to challenge the award of a commercial contract using the judicial review process.

We briefly highlight the important aspects of the case.


One thing that the Court of Appeal makes very clear is its unease that the Courts are not well equipped in judicial review proceedings to deal with the range of issues that tendering processes for commercial contracts raise and what in the Lab Tests case ultimately involved a competition for the laboratory services market in the Auckland region. The extent of the Court's concern is best highlighted by the concurring judgment of Hammond J who has written an intriguing dissertation which he called the four P's of judicial review, which are: the point of entry of judicial review, the purpose of judicial review, the principles of judicial review, and the place of judicial review in New Zealand today.

Although the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act (NZPHD Act) may have effected 'something of a sea change in the management of public health services in New Zealand', the Court of Appeal was not convinced that it swept away all elements of the previous legislation by removing the commercial aspects of a DHB's functions and powers. They found that under the NZPHD Act, the DHBs are still required to make commercial decisions and in respect of those decisions the authorities support a relatively limited role for judicial review, subject always to the statutory context.

In the present case the Court considered that the High Court judge did not give proper weight to the commercial context within which the DHBs were operating, or to the relevant statutory provisions.

The view expressed by the Court of Appeal is that judicial review should only be available in limited circumstances such as where there is fraud, corruption or bad faith, although the Court did accept that it may also be available in analogous situations. The example given was where an insider with significant inside information and a conflict of interest had used that information to further their interests and to the disadvantage of their rivals to the tender so as to undermine the integrity of the contracting process. Having identified these elements, which were an integral part of the High Court's decision, the Court of Appeal went on to determine that it did not consider the facts of the Lab Tests case fell within those circumstances.

The Court drew on examples in the NZPHD Act to highlight its concern that disputes of this sort were better addressed through non-judicial accountability mechanisms rather than through the judicial review procedure. Examples included the appointment of a crown monitor to sit on the board to observe decision making processes and advise the Minister of the board's performance, the removal provisions relating to board members in the NZPHD Act if the Minister was 'seriously dissatisfied' with the board's performance and the appointment of a commissioner.


After a lengthy analysis of the facts and the applicable legislation, the Court of Appeal came to the view that the High Court judge was wrong to conclude that Dr Bierre was in a relevant conflict situation from the time he became a board member of the Auckland DHB in December 2004 through to the day he took leave of absence in December 2005. The Court interpreted 'transaction' to mean that a person could only have a conflict of interest while a transaction or potential transaction existed. They took the view that there were periods where Dr Bierre had two separate conflicts of interest.

The first period where Dr Bierre had a conflict was when he was advocating a boutique laboratory proposal. The Court of Appeal considered that this conflict of interest ceased when it was clear that the Auckland DHB were not interested in that option and that in any event it had no relevance to the request for proposal (RFP) process for the regional approach which was eventually adopted by the ARDHBs.

The next period that Dr Bierre had a conflict of interest was when he decided to put together the consortium and respond to the ARDHBs' RFP. The Court of Appeal accepted that there was a potential conflict of interest, but found this was not problematic because the conflict had been appropriately managed by Dr Bierre taking leave of absence. Hammond J identified what we believe is an important point to remember when dealing with conflicts of interest where he stated, 'Conflicts of interest are not in themselves unethical. The ethical challenge resides in the recognition and management of them'.


Fundamental to the High Court decision was the judge's view that not only did Dr Bierre have conflicts of interest, but he was in possession of confidential information or inside information, which was available to him in his capacity as a board member and which he used to procure a material advantage for Lab Tests to win the RFP to the disadvantage of DML.

The Court, after analysing the legislation and careful consideration of the particular information identified in the case, came to the view that the evidence did not justify a conclusion that Dr Bierre had inside information that was not available to the incumbent provider DML when it made its final bid or that DML was irretrievably prejudiced from the time of its initial tender. It concluded that the information was either not confidential at all because it was of a kind described as 'soft' information or that the information was already within the knowledge or possession of the incumbent DML as part of the RFP process. By 'soft' information the Court was referring to the type of information that is sufficiently general in its nature or may evolve over time and would include such information that practising health professionals may become aware of because of their expertise and role being involved with the DHB. This was something the NZPHD Act not only encouraged but is considered essential to the way DHBs function.

The Court also considered that the somewhat nebulous nature of this type of information would provide significant opportunities for disappointed rivals to disrupt the contracting process by making colourful but ultimately unjustified allegations of wrongful use of information.

In summary the Court could not see any informational disadvantage to DML and went on to observe that, as the incumbent, DML itself would have been in possession of information that would not have been available to other bidders, which meant that as the incumbent it had an advantage over other bidders.


While recognising that DHBs have a variety of obligations to consult arising from statute, contract, legitimate expectation or 'best practice' the Court confirmed that the mere existence of an obligation will not always be enforceable by way of a judicial review process. Where it is claimed in judicial review proceedings that consultation obligations have been breached, it is necessary to identify the source and nature of the relevant obligation. In the present case, if there was any obligation to consult it would have been to the resident populations of each of the DHBs. The Court found that the obligation to consult with public health organisations in the region had not been triggered. It also took into account the nature of the contractual framework which did contemplate further consultation with GPs after the contract was agreed.

The Court also expressed some concern that the obligation to consult must depend on whether the DHB was proposing significant change to a service, viewed objectively (as required by the NZPHD Act), rather than on the fears of a particular group or groups within the DHB's resident population that a service reduction may result. What was proposed was not analogous to the closure of a hospital in a particular locality, which would in all likelihood require consultation.

The Court also considered and dismissed the claim of legitimate expectation of consultation primarily because it considered that the RFP and the Lab Tests contract was not significantly different to the original DML contract. The service specifications to provide the services were very similar. The fact that the services were to be delivered at a reduced price and that there was doubt among GPs that this could be achieved did not mean there was an obligation to consult. The Court observed that if public bodies have public law consultation obligations they cannot avoid them by establishing tendering or similar processes that make it difficult to meet those obligations.

Having said that they considered that it was not realistic to expect DHBs or similar organisations to break off negotiations in the middle of a tender process to undertake further consultation as was being suggested by the High Court.

The Court of Appeal did not accept the claim that the ARDHBs' crown funding agreement or any other Government documents created any additional consultation obligations that were enforceable by way of judicial review. The Court focused on the statutory framework and what was the purpose of consultation.


DML have indicated that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. If leave is granted to allow an appeal, DML may find it difficult to convince the Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal given the extent of the analysis of fact and law by the Court of Appeal.

Whatever the outcome, Hammond J was right when he began his concurring judgment with the observation that, 'This is a case in which, as Benjamin Franklin once famously observed, there has been the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts'.

Phillips Fox has changed its name to DLA Phillips Fox because the firm entered into an exclusive alliance with DLA Piper, one of the largest legal services organisations in the world. We will retain our offices in every major commercial centre in Australia and New Zealand, with no operational change to your relationship with the firm. DLA Phillips Fox can now take your business one step further − by connecting you to a global network of legal experience, talent and knowledge.

This publication is intended as a first point of reference and should not be relied on as a substitute for professional advice. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to any particular circumstances and no liability will be accepted for any losses incurred by those relying solely on this publication.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions