Citation: [2017] EWHC 238 (TCC)
The parties to a military hardware procurement dispute sought contrary procedural orders: the claimant sought an expedited trial to be decided before the contract was awarded, whilst the defendant sought a stay until after any such award. The court, whilst mindful of the importance of speed when resolving disputes concerning procurement, preferred to grant a stay. Ordering an expedited trial was inconsistent with the ‘leisurely’ pace at which the proceedings had previously been taken, and would have resulted in an impossible timetable, not least due to the scale of likely disclosure. The claimant had suggested that the scope of the expedited trial could be reduced, but the court queried the use of such a trial. By contrast, a short stay was granted because it was difficult to see what detriment the claimant would suffer, and in any event it would have been unclear what loss the claimant would incur until the contract was awarded.
Sarah Hannaford QC acted for the Defendant.
