Q&As

What is the court’s approach towards interim relief in public procurement challenges? Is there any particular guidance or case law on this?

read titleRead full title
Produced in partnership with Brendan Ryan of Norton Rose Fulbright
Published on LexisPSL on 27/01/2017

The following Public Law Q&A Produced in partnership with Brendan Ryan of Norton Rose Fulbright provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • What is the court’s approach towards interim relief in public procurement challenges? Is there any particular guidance or case law on this?

Pursuant to regulation 95 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102 (PCR 2015) (PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 95), the award of a public contract is automatically suspended from the time a public contract award is challenged if that contract has not yet been entered into. PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 96 allows the courts to make an order ‘lifting’ the automatic suspension on contract execution before the substantive hearing takes place.

There have been several cases in recent years in which the UK courts have considered the appropriate test for determining whether interim relief should be granted. Beginning with Indigo Services (UK) Limited v The Colchester Institute Corporation (unreported) and Exel Europe v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust, the courts have consistently held that the appropriate test is based on the traditional interim injunctive relief principles established by the American Cyanamid case, namely:

  1. is there a serious issue to be tried

  2. would damages be an adequate remedy for the challenger if interim relief were to be granted, and

  3. does the balance of conven

Related documents:

Popular documents