HT-2025-000079 - [2025] EWHC 2634 (TCC)

The suspension is, therefore, to be lifted.

In deciding whether to order expedition the court must consider whether a good reason for expedition has been shown; whether expedition would interfere with the due administration of justice; whether expedition would cause prejudice to the other party to the application; and whether there are any other special factors operating in favour or against expedition (see W L Gore & Associates GMBH v Geox SPA [2008] EWCA Civ 622 at [25] per Lord Neuberger). As Vos LJ explained in Petter v EMC Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 480, at [17] that consideration must be underpinned by the recognition that expedition should only be ordered if, viewing the matter objectively, there is some real urgency sufficient to justify that course. The fact that a claim is a challenge to a procurement decision is not without more a sufficient basis for expedition. Fraser J, as he then was, explained in Inhealth Intelligence Ltd v NHS England [2022] EWHC 2471 (TCC) at [26] that even in such a case “there must be good and cogent reasons to justify expedition”.

I have already explained why, even if the trial were to be expedited, the balance of convenience would fall in favour of the lifting of the automatic suspension and the suspension has been lifted.

In his statement explaining why the Claimant contended that expedition was justified Dr Kotsonis pointed to the seriousness of the allegations being made and the importance of the services which are to be provided under the Contract. He said that there was a public interest in the issue being heard and any breach of the Regulations remedied as soon as possible. There is an important public interest in ensuring that all cases are determined as soon as possible but the steps to be taken to reflect that interest in any particular case must have regard to the needs of other cases. Expedition of one case will almost inevitably mean that other cases will be heard later than they would have been but for the expedition. The subject matter of the Contract is, indeed, a matter of importance but neither that nor the nature of the allegations on which the claim is based amount to sufficient reasons to take the exceptional course of expedition now that the automatic suspension has been lifted. Therefore, the application for expedition is refused.