![HT-2025-000023 - [2025] EWHC 744 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png){kind=logo}
Legal Test for the ATL
Legal Test for the ATL
The relevant questions for the court in determining an application to lift the automatic suspension are not in dispute and have been pithily summarised by O’Farrell J in Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd v Gambling Commission [2022] EWHC 1664 (TCC) as follows:
Is there a serious issue to be tried?
If so, would damages be an adequate remedy for the claimant(s) if the suspension were lifted and they succeeded at trial; is it just in all the circumstances that the claimant(s) should be confined to a remedy of damages?
If not, would damages be an adequate remedy for the defendant if the suspension remained in place and it succeeded at trial?
Where there is doubt as to the adequacy of damages for either of the parties, which course of action is likely to carry the least risk of injustice if it transpires that it was wrong; that is, where does the balance of convenience lie?
Serious issue
It is common ground between the parties that there is a serious issue to be tried for the purposes of the ATL.
- Heading
- This judgment was handed down by the court remotely by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and released to the National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 28 Ma
- Background to the Procurement and Procedural History
- Legal Test for the ATL
- Adequacy of Damages for the Claimant
- Adequacy of damages for DCC
- Expedition
- Balance of convenience
- Conclusions