The Environment Agency and HS2 have spent more than £150,000 in litigation costs in an ongoing dispute over groundworks at two HS2 sites in Warwickshire.
Data released to CM following freedom of information requests shows that the public bodies paid £58,500 on counsel fees during the injunction proceedings brought by the EA to stop HS2’s earthworks at Glasshouse Wood Cutting and Stonehouse Cutting, contracted to the Balfour Beatty Vinci joint venture.
HS2 and EA litigation costs breakdown
EA costs as of 19 November 2024
- Court fees: £1,048
- Counsel’s fees (excluding VAT): £37,013
HS2 costs as of 31 October 2024
- Professional fees: £90,532 (HS2 recovered £90,000 from the EA)
- Disbursements: £626
- Counsel fees: £21,408.75
HS2 also spent £90,500 in professional bills, but recovered most of it from the EA. The EA has its own in-house legal and administrative services so does not pay for external consultants.
This is not a paywall. Registration allows us to enhance your experience across Construction Management and ensure we deliver you quality editorial content.
Registering also means you can manage your own CPDs, comments, newsletter sign-ups and privacy settings.
'A matter of regret'
In November, High Court judge Mr Justice Waksman criticised HS2 and the EA for their lack of cooperation and inefficiency regarding this dispute.
Waksman’s rebuke echoed the words of High Court judge Mrs Justice Smith, who presided over the injunction case in June.
“I observe that it is extremely unfortunate that these two bodies, both ultimately funded by the taxpayer, have been unable to resolve the issues that arise in this case; issues of which they have been aware for some considerable time,” Smith said.
“Sadly, that exhortation did not result in that course being taken smoothly. I emphasise those words and I hope it will be now,” said Waksman in November.
He added that once the arbitrator makes a decision, which is expected soon, HS2 and the EA “have to decide how they are going to proceed and I expect a high degree of cooperation, which doesn’t seem to have been present in the proceedings so far, which is a matter of regret”.
Both HS2 and the EA had previously said they were collaborating to resolve the issue.
Following the publication of the litigation expenses, an EA spokesperson said: “We continue to work very closely with HS2 and their delivery partners to find practical solutions that protect the environment.
“The EA has a number of environmental duties it must protect on behalf of the public, which were confirmed through the court. We will continue to seek a swift solution which minimises costs.”
