HT-2025-000023 - [2025] EWHC 744 (TCC)

The likely timeframe for the suspension is also relevant. The Claimant has applied for expedition in lieu of lifting the suspension but has not really explained why there is real urgency that necessitates expedition nor why this case should take priority over all other cases currently pending before the TCC: WL Gore & Associates GMBH v Geox SpA [2008] EWCA Civ 662, per Lord Neuberger §28; Petter v EMC Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 480, per Vos LJ at §17. In this regard, I also take into account the correspondence between the parties where the Claimant was willing to agree to lift the suspension in exchange for a concession from the Defendant on the sufficiently serious issue. If the Claimant was prepared to accept at that point that its remedy should be limited to damages, then there is no strong reason why this claim should be given priority above all others before the TCC.

Even if expedition were possible, with the Court’s current capacity, the earliest timeframe for an expedited 10-12 day hearing (which may be over-optimistic) would be Easter 2026 (assuming a judge were available during vacation and this case were regarded as appropriate vacation business). Judgment would take a minimum of 2 months so resolution at first instance would not be until mid 2026. More realistically, the hearing would be listed at the end of 2026 or Spring 2027 with judgment in 2027. If there were a subsequent appeal, final resolution would be unlikely before late 2027/2028. Accordingly, even on an expedited basis, DCC and vulnerable users would be deprived of the intended benefits for a minimum of 2 years. That delay is too detrimental and reinforces the conclusion that damages are not an adequate remedy for the Defendant.