The government broke the law by handing a coronavirus contract to an associate of ministers and the prime minister’s former chief aide, a judge has ruled.
In a judgment on Wednesday, the High Court deemed the awarding of the £560,000 arrangement to communications agency Public First, which has connections with cabinet minister Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings, was “unlawful”.
The case also concluded that there was “an apparent bias” surrounding the agreement.
It was brought forward by The Good Law Project, a not-for-profit campaign organisation, who questioned the decision to pay the large sum of taxpayers’ money to the firm following the start of the coronavirus crisis in March 2020.
They also questioned the role of the PM’s former chief adviser Mr Cummings in the awarding of the agreement.
Ministers had previous disputed the Good Law Project’s claim, saying that Mr Cummings had made a recommendation regarding the agency, not a decision, and called for the case to be dismissed.
They said Mr Cummings recommended a firm he knew could fulfil the brief.
The judgment states: “The claimant [The Good Law Project] is entitled to a declaration that the Decision of 5 June 2020 to award the Contract to Public First gave rise to apparent bias and was unlawful.
“Following hand down of this judgment, the hearing will be adjourned to a date to be fixed for the purpose of any consequential matters, including any applications for permission to appeal, and any time limits are extended until such hearing or further order.”
The Good Law Project’s representative, Barrister Jason Coppel QC, said: “”Public First was awarded this contract because Dominic Cummings wanted Public First to have this contract.”
Mr Coppel also suggested Cabinet Office minister Mr Gove had connections to the owners of Public First, Rachel Wolfe and James Frayne.
Mr Cummings did not give evidence at the hearing but outlined his position in a written witness statement which was handed to the judge.
He said ministers had to act speedily in the awarding of contracts due to the severity of the pandemic, and due to this, the agreement was “entirely justified”.
