Iridium Concesiones De Infraestructuras, S.A. & Ors v Transport for London [2019] EWHC 3589 (TCC) (10 October 2019)

Iridium Concesiones De Infraestructuras, S.A. & Ors v Transport for London [2019] EWHC 3589 (TCC) (10 October 2019)

The defendant failed to provide sufficient detail in support of its application to discharge the suspension prior to issuing the application, which justified a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event. The claimant's delay in consenting was reasonable in light of the late disclosure of relevant evidence. The defendant is entitled to recover only 60% of its costs.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3589 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Iridium Concesiones de Infraestructuras, S.A.; Claimant/respondent: Hochtief PPP Solutions GmbH; Claimant/respondent: Dragados, S.A.; Claimant/respondent: Hochtief Infrastructure GmbH; Defendant/applicant: Transport for London
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Procurement Dispute (application to Lift Automatic Suspension) / Costs Determination Following Consent to Discharge Suspension
Outcome
Defendant awarded 60% of its costs of the application to discharge the automatic suspension.
Legal Topics
Automatic Suspension, Interlocutory Injunction, Costs Orders, Balance of Convenience, Confidentiality in Evidence
Public Procurement Civil Procedure Automatic Suspension Interlocutory Injunction Costs Orders Balance of Convenience Confidentiality in Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iridium Concesiones de Infraestructuras, S.A.

Claimant/respondent

Hochtief PPP Solutions GmbH

Claimant/respondent

Dragados, S.A.

Claimant/respondent

Hochtief Infrastructure GmbH

Claimant/respondent

Transport for London

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Procurement Dispute (application to Lift Automatic Suspension) / Costs Determination Following Consent to Discharge Suspension

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should recover its costs of the application to discharge the automatic suspension under the Procurement Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the defendant provided adequate information to the claimant prior to making the application
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's delay in consenting to the discharge was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to provide sufficient detail in support of its application to discharge the suspension prior to issuing the application, which justified a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event. The claimant's delay in consenting was reasonable in light of the late disclosure of relevant evidence. The defendant is entitled to recover only 60% of its costs.

Court Disposition

Defendant awarded 60% of its costs of the application to discharge the automatic suspension.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay 60% of the defendant's costs of the application.