Kellogg Brown & Root Ltd v Mayor's Office For Policing And Crime & Anor [2021] EWHC 3321 (TCC) (18 November 2021)

Kellogg Brown & Root Ltd v Mayor's Office For Policing And Crime & Anor [2021] EWHC 3321 (TCC) (18 November 2021)

Damages would be an adequate remedy for KBR if the automatic suspension is lifted and it succeeds at trial. KBR's alleged harms—potential redundancies, impact on FMI business, loss of references, and reputational damage—are either speculative, quantifiable, or not supported by cogent evidence. The Proposed Contract is not so prestigious or unique as to make damages inadequate. Therefore, the automatic suspension should be lifted.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3321 (TCC)
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 Under Public Contracts Regulations 2015 / Interlocutory Application—application to Lift Automatic Suspension and Application for Expedited Trial
Outcome
Application to lift the automatic suspension granted; application for expedited trial refused.
Legal Topics
Automatic Suspension Under Procurement Regulations, Adequacy of Damages, Interim Injunctions, Balance of Convenience, Manifest Error in Evaluation, Disclosure in Procurement Disputes
Public Procurement Contract Law Administrative Law Automatic Suspension Under Procurement Regulations Adequacy of Damages Interim Injunctions Balance of Convenience Manifest Error in Evaluation +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
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 Under Public Contracts Regulations 2015 / Interlocutory Application—application to Lift Automatic Suspension and Application for Expedited Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the automatic suspension on contract award should be lifted under Regulation 96(1)(a) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant if the suspension is lifted and it succeeds at trial
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours maintaining or lifting the suspension

Ratio Decidendi

Damages would be an adequate remedy for KBR if the automatic suspension is lifted and it succeeds at trial. KBR's alleged harms—potential redundancies, impact on FMI business, loss of references, and reputational damage—are either speculative, quantifiable, or not supported by cogent evidence. The Proposed Contract is not so prestigious or unique as to make damages inadequate. Therefore, the automatic suspension should be lifted.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The automatic suspension on contract award is lifted.
  • The application for an expedited trial is refused.