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

Fecha: 25-Jun-2024

The ICB’s case

The ICB’s case

As I have said, the ICB accepts that there is a serious issue to be tried.

10.

The ICB contends that this is an unexceptional contract for urgent care services in the health care market. The same types of contracts are regularly advertised. The claimant has and will continue to compete for such contracts and in all probability win contracts:

(i)

Damages are an adequate remedy for OPC because, if the claim is successful, the loss it will have suffered is a loss of profit which is readily calculable.

(ii)

In contrast, the ICB submits that it will suffer unquantifiable loss should the suspension be maintained and the ICB succeed at trial. The service benefits from the new contract will be delayed. The interim contract is failing to reach performance targets in relation to triage times, with an increased risk to patients, and that is likely to continue. The loss is one of quality of service and quality of patient care, with an increased risk to patients and a risk of loss of public confidence.

(iii)

Accordingly, the ICB says that, if the court even reaches the point of considering the balance of convenience, the balance of convenience very much falls in favour of lifting the suspension.

11.

DHU supports the ICB’s position. The evidence of Ms Amias is largely directed to the benefits which DHU says it will bring to the ICB. A key aspect of DHU’s submissions, however, was that OPC had failed to offer any cross-undertaking in damages at all to the ICB and only a limited cross-undertaking has been offered to DHU.