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

Although damages would not be an adequate remedy for the Defendant, maintenance of the automatic suspension would cause it financial loss to the extent that it was shown that more was being paid than would have been the case if the Contract were in place. In light of the cross-undertaking proffered by the Claimant that is not a factor operating against the maintenance of the suspension. I have explained above that it is not suggested that the Claimant would not be able to satisfy an award arising out of the cross-undertaking and that the fact that the cross-undertaking could have been proffered earlier does not detract from its adequacy. The Defendant pointed out that the Claimant had not offered a cross-undertaking in relation to Healix. However, that is not material for current purposes. As Sir Robin Jacob explained in DWF LLP v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2014] EWCA Civ 900 at [54] that is no concern of the Defendant nor, in the absence of an application by Healix, is it a matter of concern for the court.