- Rail franchise procurement litigation—judgment in favour of the Secretary of State for Transport
- Background to the case
- The pensions requirements and the discretion to set the contract terms
- The approach to non-compliances in the ITTs and the decision to disqualify
- Practical considerations
Public Law analysis: The 2019 Rail Franchising Litigation involves four separate claims against the Secretary of State for Transport (the defendant), which have been case managed into a single case. The claims arose out of three separate rail franchise procurement competitions run between 2017 and 2019: East Midlands, South Eastern, and the West Coast Partnership (involving both West Coast and HS2). A particular issue that arose in those competitions was the extent of pensions risks that were required to be accepted by the franchisee under the contract terms accompanying the invitation to tender (ITT). Bill Gilliam, Michael Rainey, Paul Hirst and Ryan Geldart of Addleshaw Goddard consider the practical implications of the case.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial