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.
One of the contested issues was that HS2 had divided the works into a ‘dry dig’ and a ‘wet dig’. It argued that the dry dig would not interact with the water table and approval would only be needed for the wet dig phase. However, the EA contended that the dry dig and the wet dig works cannot be disaggregated as HS2 proposed because they are interdependent.
The EA applied for an interim injunction to stop the works but lost it at a High Court hearing in June 2024. The judge, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith, urged both organisations “ultimately funded by the taxpayer”, to “cooperate in seeking an expeditious resolution through the arbitral process”.
This admonishment was echoed by a second High Court judge in November, who reprimanded the HS2 and EA for their lack of cooperation and inefficiency in the dispute.
HS2 and EA litigation costs breakdown
EA costs as of 31 January 2025
- Court fees: £1,048
- Counsel’s fees (excluding VAT): £42,908
HS2 costs as of 31 December 2024
- Professional fees: £93,217 (HS2 recovered £90,000 from the EA)
- Disbursements: £626
- Counsel fees: £23,118.75
“Once the arbitrator has made the award, the parties 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,” said Mr Justice Waksman. “Ultimately, the cost of this exercise comes from the public purse.”
Following the arbitrator’s decision, a spokesperson for HS2 said the project “is currently being delivered on schedule”. They also confirmed that the dry excavations at both cuttings were completed during the 2024 earthworks season, which usually takes place between April and October.
The spokesperson added: “We are currently working collaboratively with the EA to gain the necessary approvals to support the 2025 earthworks season.”
HS2 and the EA did not disclose the arbitrator’s final award, citing a section of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 on the confidentiality of proceedings, which argues that making this information public would erode confidence in the judicial system and discourage parties from engaging in a dispute resolution process in the future.
BBV was approached for comment.
