Cemex UK Operations Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2392 (TCC) (08 September 2017)

Cemex UK Operations Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2392 (TCC) (08 September 2017)

CEMEX had sufficient information to plead its particulars of claim and was not entitled to delay service pending further disclosure. The requested documents were either already offered under reasonable confidentiality terms or were highly confidential and irrelevant at this stage. The application for specific disclosure was not justified, and the extension of time was refused except as agreed between the parties. PCM Rail. One AG was properly named as an interested party for the relevant hearings.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2392 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: CEMEX UK Operations Limited; Defendant: Network Rail Infrastructure Limited; Interested Party: PCM Rail. One AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Procurement Challenge / Interlocutory Applications (extension of Time, Specific Disclosure, Interested Party Status)
Outcome
Applications by CEMEX for extension of time and specific disclosure refused; PCM Rail. One AG named as interested party for specified hearings; time for service of particulars of claim extended by agreement to 4.00 p.m. on 12 September 2017.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Serve Particulars of Claim, Specific Disclosure, Confidentiality Rings, Abnormally Low Tenders, Interested Party Status in Procurement Litigation
Public Procurement Civil Procedure Extension of Time to Serve Particulars of Claim Specific Disclosure Confidentiality Rings Abnormally Low Tenders Interested Party Status in 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CEMEX UK Operations Limited

Claimant

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Defendant

PCM Rail. One AG

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Procurement Challenge / Interlocutory Applications (extension of Time, Specific Disclosure, Interested Party Status)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PCM Rail. One AG should be named as an interested party for the purposes of the hearing and the application to lift the suspension
  2. 2 Whether CEMEX should be granted an extension of time to serve its particulars of claim
  3. 3 Whether CEMEX is entitled to specific disclosure of documents from Network Rail

Ratio Decidendi

CEMEX had sufficient information to plead its particulars of claim and was not entitled to delay service pending further disclosure. The requested documents were either already offered under reasonable confidentiality terms or were highly confidential and irrelevant at this stage. The application for specific disclosure was not justified, and the extension of time was refused except as agreed between the parties. PCM Rail. One AG was properly named as an interested party for the relevant hearings.

Court Disposition

Applications by CEMEX for extension of time and specific disclosure refused; PCM Rail. One AG named as interested party for specified hearings; time for service of particulars of claim extended by agreement to 4.00 p.m. on 12 September 2017.

Orders

  • PCM Rail. One AG named as interested party for this hearing and the suspension hearing.
  • Application for extension of time to serve particulars of claim refused on its merits, but time extended by agreement to 4.00 p.m. on 12 September 2017.