B2net Ltd v HM Treasury (Sued As Buying Solutions) [2010] EWHC 51 (QB) (20 January 2010)

B2net Ltd v HM Treasury (Sued As Buying Solutions) [2010] EWHC 51 (QB) (20 January 2010)

The application for interim relief was dismissed because damages would be an adequate remedy for the Claimant if it succeeded at trial, whereas an injunction would cause significant and irreparable prejudice to numerous third parties and the public. The Claimant's case on the merits was considered weak, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting an injunction.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 51 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: B2Net Limited; Defendant: HM Treasury (sued as Buying Solutions)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Relief (injunction) in Public Procurement Dispute / Interim Application Before Trial
Outcome
Application for interim injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Public Contracts Regulations 2006, EC Directive 2004/18/ec, Non Discrimination, Transparency, Adequacy of Damages, Manifest Error, Margin of Appreciation
Public Procurement Administrative Law European Union Law Interim Injunctions Public Contracts Regulations 2006 EC Directive 2004/18/ec Non Discrimination Transparency +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B2Net Limited

Claimant

HM Treasury (sued as Buying Solutions)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Relief (injunction) in Public Procurement Dispute / Interim Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant breached the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 and EC principles by marking down the Claimant for not being a prime contractor in the PQQ process
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to an interim injunction suspending the procurement process
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the Claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interim relief was dismissed because damages would be an adequate remedy for the Claimant if it succeeded at trial, whereas an injunction would cause significant and irreparable prejudice to numerous third parties and the public. The Claimant's case on the merits was considered weak, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting an injunction.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Application for interim relief refused
  • No suspension of the procurement process