Iridium Concesiones De Infraestructuras, S.A. & Ors v Transport for London

Iridium Concesiones De Infraestructuras, S.A. & Ors v Transport for London

The defendant failed to provide sufficient detail in support of its application to discharge the suspension prior to issuing the application, justifying a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event. The defendant is entitled to only 60% of its costs.

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 Discharge Automatic Suspension) / Costs Determination After Consent to Discharge Suspension
Outcome
Defendant awarded 60% of its costs of the application.
Legal Topics
Automatic Suspension, Costs Orders, Balance of Convenience, Confidentiality in Evidence
Public Procurement Civil Procedure Automatic Suspension 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 3 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 Discharge Automatic Suspension) / Costs Determination After Consent to Discharge Suspension

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to full costs after the claimant consented to discharge the automatic suspension
  2. 2 Whether the defendant provided sufficient information to the claimant prior to the application
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's delay in consenting 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, justifying a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event. The defendant is entitled to only 60% of its costs.

Court Disposition

Defendant awarded 60% of its costs of the application.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay 60% of the defendant's costs of the application to discharge the automatic suspension.