The authority’s case about NR’s requirement to date
The authority’s case about NR’s requirement to date
For the authority, Mr Heubeck expressed confidence in NR’s data, and it was argued that because NR expressed doubt about some of its figures (the shaded cells in tables 1 and 1a above) the rest could be taken as correct. Mr Heubeck took the physical stockpile count from July 2022 (526,278) and observed that by 31 March 2022 NR had used 263,481 sleepers (column 3 of table 1 above). 133,151 sleepers are said to have been withdrawn in 2022/23, and so he suggested that one quarter of 133,151 might have been used between April and July 2022. Accordingly, Mr Heubeck said, if the July 2022 count was right, then the stockpile in total was (526,278 + 263,481 + 33,288) = 823,047.
Mr Heubeck then took the claimant’s own sales data, which have not been challenged, and subtracted from them the number of sleepers said by NR to have been purchased from the claimant for use at work sites (table 1a, paragraph 55 above). If those figures are correct then the claimant sent 525,386 sleepers to the stockpile:
Table 2: Mr Heubeck’s calculation of sleepers sent by the claimant to the stockpile
Claimant’s sales data | Subtract claimant’s sales for work sites | Totals | |
17/18 | 303,437 | 153,941 | 149,496 |
18/19 | 222,881 | 28,774 | 194,107 |
19/20 | 181,849 | 66 | 181,783 |
525,386 |
We have not yet heard evidence from the forensic accountants, but it is useful to be aware of the use the authority’s forensic accountant made of that figure. Mr Adam Smith, for the authority, expressed the view that sleepers sold for the stockpile in the real world would have been sold for track between 2020 and 2024. He therefore subtracted 500,000 (rounding Mr Heubeck’s 525,386) from the claimant’s sales data in 2017/18 to 2019/20 (making the assumption that what the claimant would have sold during those years would otherwise have been unchanged) and then spread the 500,000 evenly across the following four years. Thus on the authority’s (as yet untested) case 500,000 sleepers sold at an inflated price in the real world would have been sold for far less, and later, in the no scheme world. The claimant resists that conclusion. This decision is not about the accountants’ evidence, but we mention Mr Smith’s calculation in order to explain why the parties attached a great deal of importance to the stockpile figures.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The legal background
- The factual background
- The supply and demand for sleepers in Great Britain
- The Washwood Heath factory
- Local Distribution Centres and the rail network
- Contracts and tenders
- The P3 procurement exercise and contract
- The issues in the appeal
- Issue 1(1): the volume of sleepers required by NR to date in the real world and the no scheme world
- The authority’s case about NR’s requirement to date
- The claimant’s position about NR’s requirement to date
- Discussion and conclusions on NR’s requirement to date
- Issue 1(2): NR’s future requirement for sleepers in the real world and the NSW
- The background to future demand
- The claimant’s case about future requirement
- The authority’s case about future requirement
- Discussion and conclusion about future requirement
- Issue 2: the duration of the claimant’s business in the real world and the no scheme world
- Conclusions about the real world
- Issue 3: the terms of the extension contracts from April 2017 to April 2020
- Market share and MGV
- Price in the short-term contracts
- Market share
- Issue 4: the terms of the P3 contract in the no scheme world
- Price in the P3 contract in the no scheme world
- Would there have been an MGV in the P3 contract in the no scheme
- Market share during the P3 contract in the no scheme world
- The Area B problem
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 00138 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)