Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Philip Moser KC, Ewan West, Jen Coyne & Cliodhna Kelleher (instructed by Osborne Clarke LLP) for the Claimants Sarah Hannaford KC, James Neill, Rose Grogan & Barney McCay (instructed by Hogan Lovells LLP) for the Defendant Charles Hollander KC, Joseph Barrett & Malcolm Birdling (instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) for the Interested Parties Hearing Dates: 26-28 June 2023 ____________________
(a) Question 1: Does the Remedies Directive (89/665/EEC) ("the Remedies Directive"), as amended, impose an obligation on the UK to give the necessary standing to bring a procurement challenge to a wider group than simply unsuccessful bidders, including (but not limited to) potential sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors? ("The EU Law Position").
(b) Question 2: If not, did the UK decide to "gold plate" the Remedies Directive by conferring such standing on that wider group by enacting the CCR16? ("The Domestic Law Position").
(c) Question 3: Regardless of the answers to Issues 1 and 2, does the proper interpretation of "economic operator" in CCR16 include this wider group, including (but not limited to) potential sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors? ("The Definition of 'Economic Operator'").
(d) Question 4: In the light of the answers to the foregoing questions, do C1, C3, C4, C5 and C6 or any of them have the necessary standing to bring these claims? ("The Standing of C1-C6").
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.