Siemens Mobility Ltd v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd [2022] EWHC 2190 (TCC) (17 August 2022)

Siemens Mobility Ltd v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd [2022] EWHC 2190 (TCC) (17 August 2022)

Expert evidence is not reasonably required to resolve any of the pleaded issues in this procurement challenge. The technical matters raised can be addressed through factual evidence, tender documents, and cross-examination. Independent expert assessment of tender merits is impermissible; the court's role is to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2190 (TCC)
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 Challenge and Judicial Review / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Manifest Error, Tender Evaluation, Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016
Public Procurement Judicial Review Expert Evidence Manifest Error Tender Evaluation Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016

Source-derived case record

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert evidence is reasonably required to resolve the pleaded issues in a procurement challenge under the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016
  2. 2 Whether technical explanatory evidence is necessary for issues of manifest error or unfairness in tender evaluation

Ratio Decidendi

Expert evidence is not reasonably required to resolve any of the pleaded issues in this procurement challenge. The technical matters raised can be addressed through factual evidence, tender documents, and cross-examination. Independent expert assessment of tender merits is impermissible; the court's role is to review the lawfulness of the procurement process, not substitute its own technical judgment.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to adduce expert evidence is refused
  • Court will hear parties on consequential matters arising from the judgment