![HT-2024-000023 - [2025] EWHC 63 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png){kind=logo}
Business disruption
Business disruption
Ms Coyne points out that nowhere in any of the copious witness evidence is it said in terms by OPC that the lifting of the suspension will lead to the destruction of the business. As a matter of fact that is right but it is not necessary for OPC to go that far. In the Central Surrey Heath case, for example, Waksman J was satisfied that there could be a real disruptive effect on the claimant’s remaining businesses and operating finances which would be difficult, if not impossible, to quantify, and that was sufficient for him to find that damages were not an adequate remedy. What the court will consider is serious financial difficulties that cannot be compensated in damages and which will be all the more serious if they may lead to the result that the business is destroyed.
Although not accepting its factual accuracy, the ICB encapsulates OPC’s position as follows:
OPC has made profits from the existing UCC contract and large payments have been made to shareholders.
OPC has structured its business so that the old contract (and now the interim contract) subsidises other loss-making contracts which would otherwise be financially unsustainable.
OPC was aware that the existing contract would come to an end on 31 March 2024 and that there was no guarantee that it would be re-awarded this (or any other) contract.
Nonetheless it made 4 significant loans to a shareholder property company, OMPH, to enable that business to expand.
There was no financial “backup plan” in the event that OPC was not awarded the contract.
As a result there is a risk that OPC will cease to exist by the time of trial.
The ICB does not accept that that risk exists and maintains that there are numerous ways OPC’s financial position can be improved including by the injection of funds from shareholders.