Bombardier Transportation Ltd v Merseytravel [2017] EWHC 575 (TCC) (24 March 2017)

Bombardier Transportation Ltd v Merseytravel [2017] EWHC 575 (TCC) (24 March 2017)

Procurement claims should not be routinely marked as private; court files should be publicly accessible unless specific, justified confidentiality concerns exist. In this case, the Particulars of Claim are not confidential and should be available to the public. Annexes may require further analysis for confidentiality, but redaction or anonymisation is generally sufficient.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 575 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Bombardier Transportation Limited; Defendant: Merseytravel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Procurement Dispute (claim for Damages) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Confidentiality and Public Access to Court File
Outcome
Application for blanket confidentiality over Particulars of Claim refused; further instructions required regarding annexes.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Confidentiality in Court Proceedings, Access to Court Files, Procurement Litigation
Public Procurement Civil Procedure Open Justice Confidentiality in Court Proceedings Access to Court Files Procurement Litigation

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bombardier Transportation Limited

Claimant

Merseytravel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procurement Dispute (claim for Damages) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Confidentiality and Public Access to Court File

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procurement claims should be routinely marked as private and court files withheld from public access
  2. 2 How to balance open justice with confidentiality in procurement disputes
  3. 3 Whether Particulars of Claim and annexes in this case should be withheld from non-parties

Ratio Decidendi

Procurement claims should not be routinely marked as private; court files should be publicly accessible unless specific, justified confidentiality concerns exist. In this case, the Particulars of Claim are not confidential and should be available to the public. Annexes may require further analysis for confidentiality, but redaction or anonymisation is generally sufficient.

Court Disposition

Application for blanket confidentiality over Particulars of Claim refused; further instructions required regarding annexes.

Orders

  • Particulars of Claim to be made available to the public on the court file.
  • Claimant to review annexes for confidentiality and respond in detail; further directions to be given if necessary.