European Dynamics SA v HM Treasury [2009] EWHC 3419 (TCC) (23 December 2009)

European Dynamics SA v HM Treasury [2009] EWHC 3419 (TCC) (23 December 2009)

The injunction was discharged because, although there were serious issues to be tried regarding the marking and evaluation of tenders, damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendant due to public interest, potential prejudice, and lack of evidence of irreparable harm to the claimant.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3419 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: European Dynamics SA; Defendant: HM Treasury (sued as Buying Solutions)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application in Public Procurement Dispute / Discharge of Without Notice Injunction; Costs Determination
Outcome
Injunction discharged; costs awarded to defendant
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Tender Evaluation, Adequacy of Damages, Limitation Periods, Transparency and Equal Treatment in Procurement
Public Procurement Administrative Law Interim Injunctions Tender Evaluation Adequacy of Damages Limitation Periods Transparency and Equal Treatment in Procurement

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

European Dynamics SA

Claimant

HM Treasury (sued as Buying Solutions)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application in Public Procurement Dispute / Discharge of Without Notice Injunction; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the marking and evaluation of the claimant's tenders was unfair and lacked transparency
  2. 2 Whether the tender documentation was inadequate or unlawfully drafted
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was discharged because, although there were serious issues to be tried regarding the marking and evaluation of tenders, damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendant due to public interest, potential prejudice, and lack of evidence of irreparable harm to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Injunction discharged; costs awarded to defendant

Orders

  • The without notice injunction granted on 10 December 2009 is discharged.
  • The claimant is to pay the defendant's costs of the without notice and on notice applications, summarily assessed at £17,000, payable by 8 January 2009.