Within procurement law, automatic suspension is an injunction preventing a contracting authority from entering a contract where the decision is being legally challenged. However, in the majority of cases in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) over the last few years, contracting authorities have been successful in applications to lift this ‘automatic suspension’. Out of 16 applications to lift suspensions since 2017, 11 have been successful.
Currently, the test for lifting a suspension is the test that came out of American Cyanamid Co v Ethicom Ltd [1975] AC 396 (although this is likely to change when the new Procurement Bill comes into force) and is as follows:
- Is there a serious issue to be tried?
- If so, would damages be an adequate remedy for the challenging bidder if the suspension were lifted and they then succeeded at trial?
- Would damages be an adequate remedy for the contracting authority if the suspension remained in place and it succeeded at trial?
- Where does the balance of convenience lie?
In this note, I will briefly run through the most recent cases on the matter in light of the above test:
- Practice Plus Group Health and Rehabilitation Services Ltd v NHS Commissioning Board [2022] EWHC 2082 (TCC);
- Braceurself Limited v NHS England [2022] EWHC 1532 (TCC);
- Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd v the Gambling Commission [2022] EWHC 1664 (TCC);
- Draeger Safety UK Ltd v London Fire Commissioner [2021] EWHC 2221 (TCC);
- Vodafone v SoS for Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2021] EWHC 2793 (TCC); and
- Kellogg Brown & Root Ltd v Mayor's Office For Policing And Crime & Anor [2021] EWHC 3321 (TCC).
Practice Plus Group Health and Rehabilitation Services Ltd v NHS Commissioning Board [2022] EWHC 2082 (TCC)
1. Is there a serious issue to be tried?
Yes, the contracting authority accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried.
2. If so, would damages be an adequate remedy for the challenging bidder if the suspension were lifted and they then succeeded at trial?
The challenging bidder failed to persuade the Court that damages would not be an adequate remedy.
3. Would damages be an adequate remedy for the contracting authority if the suspension remained in place and it succeeded at trial?
The Court held that damages would have been an inadequate remedy for the contracting authority if the suspension was ‘wrongly’ upheld – ‘the interference with [the NHS’s] public functions cannot be compensated in damages. Further, any deficiency in healthcare provision to serving prisoners by reason of delay in making the new contracts is likely to result in increased burdens on the general NHS when the prisoners are released into the community, a cost incapable of calculation’ (para 24).
4. Where does the balance of convenience lie?
The Court held that, even if Limb 4 had resulted in the opposite conclusion, the balance of convenience fell in favour of lifting the suspension.
Braceurself Limited v NHS England [2022] EWHC 1532 (TCC)
1. Is there a serious issue to be tried?
Yes.
2. If so, would damages be an adequate remedy for the challenging bidder if the suspension were lifted and they then succeeded at trial?
The Court held that damages would be an adequate remedy for the challenging bidder.
3. Would damages be an adequate remedy for the contracting authority if the suspension remained in place and it succeeded at trial?
The Court held that damages would not be an adequate remedy for NHS England.
4. Where does the balance of convenience lie?
The automatic suspension was lifted confining Braceurself to the remedy of damages. It was established at trial that Braceurself should have been awarded the contract however the Court ruled that the contracting authority’s breach of procurement law was not ‘sufficiently serious’ to give rise to a right of damages.
Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd v the Gambling Commission [2022] EWHC 1664
1. Is there a serious issue to be tried?
Yes, the issue of whether the lawful running of the procurement should have resulted in an award of the National Lottery Licence to Camelot or Allwyn.
2. If so, would damages be an adequate remedy for the challenging bidder if the suspension were lifted and they then succeeded at trial?
The Court held that damages would be an adequate remedy for Camelot.
3. Would damages be an adequate remedy for the contracting authority if the suspension remained in place and it succeeded at trial?
The Court held that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the Gambling Commission.
4. Where does the balance of convenience lie?
As a result of the above tests, the balance of convenience lay in lifting the suspension.
Draeger Safety UK Ltd v London Fire Commissioner [2021] EWHC 2221 (TCC)
1. Is there a serious issue to be tried?
Yes.
2. If so, would damages be an adequate remedy for the challenging bidder if the suspension were lifted and they then succeeded at trial?
The Court held that, whilst the procurement was not considered to be unique or high value, as it was being watched by other fire and rescue services it was ‘likely to be perceived as setting the standard for improved protective equipment in the sector’ and therefore it was ‘arguable’ that if the automatic was suspension was lifted, Draeger could suffer reputational damage for which damages would not be adequate.
3. Would damages be an adequate remedy for the contracting authority if the suspension remained in place and it succeeded at trial?
The Court held that, following the Grenfell disaster, damages would not be adequate for the delay in replacement of outdated RPE.
4. Where does the balance of convenience lie?
The Court considered that the timely replacement of outdated RPE was in the public interest but determined that it could offer an expedited trial date and therefore maintained the automatic suspension.
Vodafone v SoS for Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2021] EWHC 2793 (TCC)
1. Is there a serious issue to be tried?
Yes, whether or not the award to Fujitsu was lawful.
2. If so, would damages be an adequate remedy for the challenging bidder if the suspension were lifted and they then succeeded at trial?
The Court held that damages would not adequately compensate Vodafone. Vodafone would not have the chance to bid for a comparable opportunity for a long time.
3. Would damages be an adequate remedy for the contracting authority if the suspension remained in place and it succeeded at trial?
The Court accepted that damages probably would not be an adequate remedy, but in this case it was likely that the trial would take place within 4 months and so the Court held that delaying the award of the contract for a relatively short period of time would not lead to any specific threat to national security.
4. Where does the balance of convenience lie?
It was concluded that there would be demonstrable and irremediable harm to Vodafone if the contract was signed before determining whether or not the tender process had indeed been lawful and on the other hand, the contracting authority had not convincingly demonstrated prejudice from delaying signature of contract signing.
Kellogg Brown & Root Ltd v Mayor's Office For Policing And Crime & Anor [2021] EWHC 3321 (TCC).
1. Is there a serious issue to be tried?
Yes.
2. If so, would damages be an adequate remedy for the challenging bidder if the suspension were lifted and they then succeeded at trial?
The Court held that damages would be an adequate remedy for Kellogg Brown.
3. Would damages be an adequate remedy for the contracting authority if the suspension remained in place and it succeeded at trial?
The Court held that there was a risk that damages would be an inadequate remedy for the contracting authority.
4. Where does the balance of convenience lie?
The Court held that the balance of convenience supported the lifting of the suspension.
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
What impact will the Procurement Act 2023 have on resolving contractual disputes?
Legal Update - PFI expiry
A first of many? PFI company seeks Restructuring Plan
Published Article
The Post Office Horizon IT Scandal: How should organisations react when IT systems go wrong?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson appoints Jan Cumming as legal director to Government practice
Online Event - Procurement Act
Procurement reform webinar - are you ready?
Legal Update - PFI expiry
PFI handback: ‘Handback Condition’ limitations, disputes and solutions
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Provider Selection Regime - how will it work in practice?
Legal Update - Procurement Act
PPN 01/24: Carbon reduction contract schedule
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Landmark judgment in OCS Group UK Limited v Community Health Partnerships Limited
Press Release
Browne Jacobson to advise East London Waste Authority on major waste programme
Legal Update
Braceurself Ltd v NHS England 2024: Court of Appeal procurement case decision
Legal Update
UK falls to lowest position for corruption – so what’s going wrong?
Legal Update - Procurement Act
The evolution of sub-contracting under the Procurement Act 2023
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement reform: Making poor performance a thing of the past
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Act: the even lighter touch regime
On-Demand
Provider Selection Regime – change is coming, what does it mean for you?
Published Article
Infrastructure and social value in public contracts – making it concrete
On-Demand - Procurement Act
Procurement Reform - Change is coming, are you ready?
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill: Competitive flexible procedure, how will this work in practice?
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill - Are they still playing ping-pong?
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Act 2023: Getting Ready for Reform - the countdown is on!
Legal Update
PPN 08/23: using standard contracts
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advising the Welsh Government on the delivery of significant number of renewable energy projects
Legal Update
Guidance on contract changes: James Waste Management LLP v Essex County Council
Legal Update
Case summary: the importance of bringing a procurement claim within the appropriate time limits
Legal Update - Procurement Act
New obligations for Welsh public bodies on social partnership and socially responsible procurement
Legal Update
Challenging procurement decisions by way of Judicial Review - the key principles
Legal Update
Australia and New Zealand Free Trade Agreement drives changes to the Public Procurement rules
Published Article
Amendments to Procurement Bill: Navigating sanctions and supplier bans and impact on the construction sector
On-Demand
'Getting ready to reform – preparing for the new Procurement Bill' webinar
Legal Update
Changes to the Standard Selection Questionnaire effective from 1 April 2023
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Automatic suspension and procurement law
Press Release
Browne Jacobson collaborates with The GLAA and University of Nottingham to tackle modern slavery and human trafficking
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - February 2023
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill debarment regime and ECHR issues
Published Article
Digital Twin Technologies: key legal contractual considerations
Guide - Procurement Act
Public procurement: key facts and compliance considerations
Published Article
Reaching cloud nine? Public procurement for cloud-based services
Opinion - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill - what’s new in 2022?
Legal Update
CCGs’ conduct “sufficiently serious” for award of damages in High Court procurement case
This case provides a reminder to contracting authorities that whilst the bar for an award of damages in procurement cases is high, following the Supreme Court ruling in Energy Solutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2017] 1 WLR 1373, it is not insurmountable when a contracting authority has acted with disregard to the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCRs). There is also further guidance as to the use of frameworks