A decision by the Contracts Revision Board was overturned by the Court of Appeal because the name of an expert had not been communicated to the complainant.

B. Grima & Sons Ltd said it had tendered for a Transport Malta contract for the provision of vehicle and pedestrian restraint systems and metal works.

The tender document specified that the successful bidder had to produce evidence of experience in similar works in the previous three years, and these projects had to have a minimum value of €50,000 per annum.

Three bids were submitted and B. Grima & Sons said its offer was the cheapest. However, Transport Malta awarded the tender to Road Maintenance Services, informing B. Grima & Sons its offer had not been accepted because it was not the cheapest and ranked second.

The company insisted its offer was the cheapest and, it informed the court, Transport Malta then wrote saying its offer could not be accepted because it was not technically compliant with the terms laid down.

B. Grima & Sons therefore took its case to the Contracts Review Board, which ruled the company was not technically compliant on the basis of an independent engineer’s advice.

So the company then went to the Court of Appeal, composed of Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri.

It argued that the board’s decision was based on the advice of a technical adviser who remained unnamed.

This, it maintained, was in breach of its fundamental human right to a fair hearing for it had not been given the opportunity to assess the impartiality and competence of the adviser.

It resulted that the board’s technical adviser was in fact a Transport Malta employee and could not be deemed to be independent and impartial.

The court noted that the board was entitled to appoint experts to assist in investigations, however, such investigations were an integral part of the judicial process that had to be open and public.

The identity of the experts had to be known and the parties should have the right to cross-examine them.

The Court of Appeal therefore overturned the board’s decision and ordered it to re-evaluate the company’s complaint.