SIEMENS MOBILITY LIMITED v HIGH SPEED TWO (HS2) LIMITED

SIEMENS MOBILITY LIMITED v HIGH SPEED TWO (HS2) LIMITED

Permission to adduce expert evidence was refused because Siemens failed to establish that expert evidence was reasonably necessary or proportionate to resolve any pleaded issues. The court found that the technical matters could be addressed by reference to the tender documents, factual witnesses, and cross-examination, and that expert evidence would not assist in determining whether the procurement process was in accordance with the Regulations.

Parties
Claimant: Siemens Mobility Limited; Defendant: High Speed Two (HS2) Limited; Interested Party: Bombardier Transportation UK Limited; Interested Party: Hitachi Rail Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Procurement and Judicial Review / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Manifest Error, Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, Tender Evaluation, Disclosure
Public Procurement Judicial Review Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Manifest Error Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 Tender Evaluation Disclosure

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siemens Mobility Limited

Claimant

High Speed Two (HS2) Limited

Defendant

Bombardier Transportation UK Limited

Interested Party

Hitachi Rail Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Procurement and Judicial Review / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted for parties to adduce expert evidence in the field of rolling stock dwell time, door configuration, seat configuration and rolling stock platform interface in a procurement challenge under the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to adduce expert evidence was refused because Siemens failed to establish that expert evidence was reasonably necessary or proportionate to resolve any pleaded issues. The court found that the technical matters could be addressed by reference to the tender documents, factual witnesses, and cross-examination, and that expert evidence would not assist in determining whether the procurement process was in accordance with the Regulations.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to adduce expert evidence refused
  • Court to hear parties on consequential matters