European Dynamics SA v HM Treasury

European Dynamics SA v HM Treasury

The injunction was discharged because, although there were serious issues to be tried regarding tender evaluation, damages were an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience favoured the Defendant, and the Claimant's complaints about tender documentation and pre-qualification were weak and likely time-barred.

Parties
Claimant: European Dynamics SA; Defendant: HM Treasury (sued as Buying Solutions)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Post Hearing, Discharge of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Injunction discharged; costs awarded to Defendant
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Tender Evaluation, Limitation Periods, Damages Assessment, Transparency in Procurement
Public Procurement Contract Law Interim Injunctions Tender Evaluation Limitation Periods Damages Assessment Transparency 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

European Dynamics SA

Claimant

HM Treasury (sued as Buying Solutions)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Post Hearing, Discharge of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the marking and evaluation of tenders was unfair and lacked transparency
  2. 2 Whether the tender documentation was inadequate or improperly included pre-qualification criteria at award stage
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy for the Claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was discharged because, although there were serious issues to be tried regarding tender evaluation, damages were an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience favoured the Defendant, and the Claimant's complaints about tender documentation and pre-qualification were weak and likely time-barred.

Court Disposition

Injunction discharged; costs awarded to Defendant

Orders

  • The injunction granted on 10 December 2009 is discharged.
  • The Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs of £17,000 by 8 January 2009.