Kellogg Brown & Root Ltd v Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime

Kellogg Brown & Root Ltd v Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime

Damages would be an adequate remedy for KBR if the suspension is lifted, as KBR failed to provide sufficient evidence of irreparable or unquantifiable loss. There is a serious risk that damages would be inadequate for MOPAC if the suspension is maintained, due to non-financial prejudice and delay in implementing improved services. The balance of convenience favours lifting the suspension. An expedited trial is not appropriate due to the likely complexity and preparation required.

Parties
Claimant: Kellogg Brown & Root Limited; First Defendant: Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime; Second Defendant: Metropolitan Police Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Procurement Challenge (application to Lift Automatic Suspension and for Expedited Trial) / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Application to lift the automatic suspension granted; application for expedited trial refused.
Legal Topics
Automatic Suspension Under Public Contracts Regulations, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience, Expedited Trial, Interim Injunctions
Public Procurement Contract Law Civil Procedure Automatic Suspension Under Public Contracts Regulations Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience Expedited Trial Interim Injunctions

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kellogg Brown & Root Limited

Claimant

Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime

First Defendant

Metropolitan Police Service

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procurement Challenge (application to Lift Automatic Suspension and for Expedited Trial) / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the automatic suspension under Regulation 95(1) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 should be lifted
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant if the suspension is lifted
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the defendant if the suspension is maintained

Ratio Decidendi

Damages would be an adequate remedy for KBR if the suspension is lifted, as KBR failed to provide sufficient evidence of irreparable or unquantifiable loss. There is a serious risk that damages would be inadequate for MOPAC if the suspension is maintained, due to non-financial prejudice and delay in implementing improved services. The balance of convenience favours lifting the suspension. An expedited trial is not appropriate due to the likely complexity and preparation required.

Court Disposition

Application to lift the automatic suspension granted; application for expedited trial refused.

Orders

  • The automatic suspension under Regulation 95(1) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 is lifted.
  • The application for an expedited trial is refused.