In brief: Gama Aviation has taken its dispute over Jersey’s air ambulance contract to the Royal Court, applying for a judicial review of the Health Department’s decision to award the service to rival firm 247 Aviation. Gama argues the procurement process was unfair and insufficiently transparent, while the Health Minister’s legal team insists it was robust and professional. Judgment has been reserved.
A Lifeline Service, A Legal Battle
Jersey’s air ambulance service, which handles emergency medical transfers of islanders to the UK, has become the subject of a courtroom dispute that concluded its two-day hearing on Wednesday evening. Bailiwick Express reports that Gama Aviation, which has provided the service since August 2020, lost out to competitor 247 Aviation when the Health Department selected a new provider earlier this year. Gama’s contract is due to end on 31 December, and the company has applied for judicial review, seeking to have the decision quashed.
The case was heard in the Royal Court before the Bailiff, Robert MacRae, sitting with Jurats Ronge and Le Cornu. Advocate Jonathan Barham, representing Gama in the case against Health Minister Tom Binet, laid out a series of complaints about how the tender process had been conducted between its second and third stages.
Apples, Pears and Procurement Rules
At the heart of Gama’s case is a change in aircraft specifications during the bidding process. At stage two, it was a stated requirement that the Jersey service be provided by twin-engined aircraft. Gama prepared its bid accordingly. However, documentation issued to bidders for stage three on 1 April this year contained references permitting single-engined aircraft, though Advocate Barham noted the wording was conflicting. The deadline for final bids was 20 April, leaving Gama little time to adjust its approach.
247 Aviation, by contrast, had prepared options based on both twin- and single-engined planes, ultimately proposing a Pilatus PC-12, a single-engined aircraft, while Gama stuck with a twin-engined King Air. The Bailiff himself observed that evaluators were effectively “comparing apples with pears” when assessing the two bids.
Advocate Barham also raised concerns about the scoring process. Out of ten individuals who evaluated both companies across 16 criteria, two had not completed their feedback paperwork. In other cases, feedback was incomplete and marks had been revised upwards or downwards without sufficient explanation. Most strikingly, one evaluator described Gama’s bid as “speculative and unproven”, which Advocate Barham said was an unrealistic assessment for a company that had been running the service since 2020, suggesting the evaluator had confused the two bidders.
“There were manifest errors in procedure that were so significant that the decision cannot be allowed to stand and must be quashed,” Advocate Barham told the court.
The Government’s Defence
Advocate James Rondel, representing the Health Minister, pushed back firmly, describing the procurement process as “robust and professional.” He argued that the Health Department had consistently made clear throughout the bidding process that it welcomed a flexible approach to aircraft type, in order to explore solutions that could maximise efficiencies without compromising service standards. He said both companies had received the same notification about the updated specifications, and that this communication had taken place in December 2025, some 122 days before the final bid deadline.
Gama’s decision to submit a bid based solely on a twin-engined plane was, Advocate Rondel said, a “commercial decision” by the company, which had judged that approach gave it the best chance of winning. He denied there had been any failure to provide reasons or errors in marking, though he acknowledged that a full breakdown of marks had not been shared, on the grounds that doing so would have allowed each company to deduce the cost of its rival’s bid.
The Bailiff questioned whether the Health Department should have shared feedback from Jersey’s Director of Civil Aviation, who had confirmed that a single-engined aircraft could be used for the service. Advocate Rondel conceded, “with the benefit of hindsight”, that this information could have been shared, while maintaining that Gama had been free to raise queries at any point.
Advocate Rebecca McNulty, representing 247 Aviation, focused on the timing of Gama’s application for judicial review, which was filed on 20 July. She argued there was “no justification” for Gama to have reserved its position and then launched proceedings only after learning its bid had failed, describing the delay as detrimental both to 247 and to public administration.
A Familiar Story Across the Water
This is not the first time Gama has fought this battle. Bailiwick Express notes that a near-identical dispute played out in Guernsey, where Gama challenged that island’s Health Department over its own decision to switch air ambulance provider. Guernsey’s Lieutenant-Bailiff, Hazel Marshall, dismissed Gama’s application for judicial review, ruling that the procurement process had been followed correctly and that 247 had won the contract “fair and square.”
Whether Jersey’s Royal Court will reach the same conclusion remains to be seen. The Bailiff confirmed at the close of the two-day hearing, which ran until 6.05pm on Wednesday, that judgment would be reserved until a later date.
Source: Bailiwick Express
