SCCSI
(Providing Elite Certification Programmes to Construction Professionals Since 2009)
Explore Our Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes
Presented by
Society of Construction Claims
Specialists International
sccsinternational.org
Specialists International
Cubic Transportation Systems Limited v Transport for London and another
[2026] EWHC 211 (TCC) | Technology and Construction Court, London
Before Mr Roger ter Haar KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge | Decision on the papers | Handed down 5 February 2026
Knowledge Check
Procurement suspension costs and the interested party's position
This Knowledge Check examines the costs decision following Transport for London's successful application to lift the automatic suspension in Cubic's procurement challenge. Cubic accepted liability for Transport for London's costs of that application and its own expedited-trial application.
The court decided the payment to be made on account pending detailed assessment. Transport for London stated costs of GBP 1,201,444.75 and sought 60 per cent, while Cubic proposed no more than GBP 300,000.
The interested party, Indra, separately sought GBP 233,599. The court applied the principles governing costs for winning bidders participating in procurement disputes and reserved Indra's costs application for the trial judge.
This Knowledge Check covers
- The earlier lifting of the automatic suspension
- Cubic's accepted liability for Transport for London's costs
- Detailed assessment of those costs
- The competing payment-on-account figures
- The factors supporting Transport for London's recovery
- The GBP 720,866.85 payment ordered
- The principles governing an interested party's costs
- Cubic's objections to Indra's application
- Reservation of Indra's costs to the trial judge
- The direction for a later case management conference
Choose your Knowledge Check mode
Legal Disclaimer
This Knowledge Check is provided for educational and professional development purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects interpretations and analyses that may not apply to specific circumstances. Contract interpretation depends on specific wording, jurisdiction, and factual context. Always consult qualified legal professionals before making decisions based on this content. SCCSI and its contributors accept no liability for reliance on this material.