header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 February 2012
Issue: 7500 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Contract—Public procurement—European Union procurement regime

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Alstom Transport v Eurostar International Ltd [2012] EWHC 28 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 173 (Jan)
Chancery Division, Roth J, 20 Jan 2012

Eurostar International Ltd (Eurostar) is not a utility for the purpose of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006, SI 2006/6 (UCR) and is not a contracting authority for the purposes of the Public Contract Regulations 2006, SI 2006/5 (PCR). 

Sarah Hannaford QC and Jessica Stephens (instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP) for Alstom. Michael Bowsher QC and Ewan West (instructed by Burges Salmon LLP) for Eurostar.

Eurostar operated a high-speed passenger rail service through the Channel Tunnel. In May 2009, Eurostar issued invitations to tender for a substantial and valuable contract for the design, supply and maintenance of a new generation of trains. In October 2010, Eurostar announced that Siemens plc (Siemens) would be awarded the contract. Alstom Transport (Alstom), which supplied the trains currently used by Eurostar, was an unsuccessful tenderer. Alstom claimed that the tender process conducted by Eurostar violated the EU procurement regime. Alstom claimed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll