Practice Plus Group Health And Rehabilitation Services Ltd v NHS Commissioning Board [2022] EWHC 2082 (TCC) (20 July 2022)

Practice Plus Group Health And Rehabilitation Services Ltd v NHS Commissioning Board [2022] EWHC 2082 (TCC) (20 July 2022)

Damages are an adequate remedy for the claimant; the application to lift the automatic suspension succeeds because the claimant's alleged losses are either speculative, not recoverable, or quantifiable. The balance of convenience and adequacy of damages for the defendant further support lifting the suspension.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2082 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Practice Plus Group Health and Rehabilitation Services Limited; Defendant: NHS Commissioning Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Application to Lift Automatic Suspension Under Public Contracts Regulations 2015 / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application granted; automatic suspension lifted.
Legal Topics
Automatic Suspension, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience, Loss of Chance, Reputational Damage
Public Procurement Contract Law Automatic Suspension Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience Loss of Chance Reputational Damage

Source-derived case record

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Practice Plus Group Health and Rehabilitation Services Limited

Claimant

NHS Commissioning Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Lift Automatic Suspension Under Public Contracts Regulations 2015 / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the automatic suspension on contract making should be lifted under regulation 96(1) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015
  2. 2 Whether damages are an adequate remedy for the claimant
  3. 3 Where the balance of convenience lies

Ratio Decidendi

Damages are an adequate remedy for the claimant; the application to lift the automatic suspension succeeds because the claimant's alleged losses are either speculative, not recoverable, or quantifiable. The balance of convenience and adequacy of damages for the defendant further support lifting the suspension.

Court Disposition

Application granted; automatic suspension lifted.

Orders

  • The automatic suspension on contract making imposed by regulation 95(1) is lifted.
  • The defendant may enter into contracts for lots 3 and 4.