HT-2024-000023 - [2025] EWHC 63 (TCC)

The relevant test is whether it is arguable that damages would not be an adequate remedy (Draeger Safety UK Ltd v London Fire Commissioner [2021] EWHC 2221 (TCC) at [41]).

The court may take account of the difficulty in assessing damages based on the loss of a chance and the speculative nature of the ascertainment.

If the refusal of an injunction would put a party out of business, it is likely that no damages would adequately compensate for that (Camelot at [87]). It will be relevant to consider the extent to which lifting the automatic suspension would have a real and disruptive effect on the claimant’s remaining business and finances which is difficult to quantify – see Central Surrey Health Ltd. v NHS Surrey Downs CCG [2018] EWHC 3499 (TCC) at [56]-[57].

The loss of a highly skilled workforce with skills not widely available may result in damages not being adequate.

The court may consider the effect on the wider community and healthcare areas served by the claimant if there is a knock on effect to other contracts that it delivers.

Loss of reputation and market position may be relied on to establish that damages are not an adequate remedy where loss of an uniquely prestigious contract is likely to impact on prospects of success in future tenders but cogent evidence is needed.