Circle Nottingham Ltd v NHS Rushcliffe Clinical Commissioning Group [2019] EWHC 1315 (TCC) (17 June 2019)

Circle Nottingham Ltd v NHS Rushcliffe Clinical Commissioning Group [2019] EWHC 1315 (TCC) (17 June 2019)

The court held that damages would be an adequate remedy for the Claimant if it succeeded at trial, as any loss of profit or other losses could be quantified and compensated. The evidence did not establish that loss of reputation or other heads of loss would result in irrecoverable or unquantifiable damage to the Claimant. The balance of convenience did not favour maintaining the suspension, and the suspension should be lifted to allow the Defendant to enter into the new contract.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1315 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Circle Nottingham Limited; Defendant: NHS Rushcliffe Clinical Commissioning Group; Interested Party: Nottingham University Hospital Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Application to Lift Automatic Suspension Under Public Contracts Regulations 2015 / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application granted; suspension lifted
Legal Topics
Automatic Suspension Under PCR 2015, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience, Interim Injunctions, Loss of Reputation, TUPE Transfers, State Aid
Public Procurement Contract Law Administrative Law Automatic Suspension Under PCR 2015 Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience Interim Injunctions Loss of Reputation +2 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Circle Nottingham Limited

Claimant

NHS Rushcliffe Clinical Commissioning Group

Defendant

Nottingham University Hospital Trust

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the automatic suspension on contract award should be lifted under regulation 96(2) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant if the contract is not awarded to it
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours maintaining or lifting the suspension

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that damages would be an adequate remedy for the Claimant if it succeeded at trial, as any loss of profit or other losses could be quantified and compensated. The evidence did not establish that loss of reputation or other heads of loss would result in irrecoverable or unquantifiable damage to the Claimant. The balance of convenience did not favour maintaining the suspension, and the suspension should be lifted to allow the Defendant to enter into the new contract.

Court Disposition

Application granted; suspension lifted

Orders

  • The automatic suspension on entering into the contract is lifted, permitting the Defendant to enter into the new contract with the Nottingham University Hospital Trust.