Citation: [2026] EWHC 8 (TCC)
The TCC granted the application to lift the automatic suspension on the award of a new blood establishment computer system contract to GPI. The court held that damages would have been an adequate remedy for MAK, given the modest financial and reputational impact of the contract, while the loss of the opportunity to introduce the new system within the expected timescales was not a loss that could have been adequately remedied by damages.
Background
This application arose out of the procurement by the Welsh Blood Service (“WBS”) of a new blood establishment computer system (“BECS”). WBS was an operating division of the defendant Trust.
WBS was the body responsible for the supply of blood and blood components to NHS Wales. It had a statutory responsibility to collect and maintain detailed records relating to individual blood donors; the blood-testing process; the processing of donated blood; and the storage and supply of all donated blood components. Since the 1980s, these records had been held in a digital system which managed the process and infrastructure.
The Claimant (“MAK”) had been the incumbent supplier since 2015, deploying its eProgesa software. The procurement process began on 11 October 2024 with an advertisement on the Find a Tender website and the issue of an invitation to tender (“ITT”). Annex A to the ITT contained the Specification, which comprised nearly 300 individual requirements. Bids were submitted by 11 November 2024.
On 9 May 2025, bidders were notified that the successful bidder was GPI SpA (“GPI”), the Interested Party. GPI achieved a total score was 81.50%, while MAK scored [REDACTED] and placed third among the bidders. Following correspondence from MAK alleging breaches of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (“PCR”), a revised award notification was issued on 23 May 2025.
MAK made further allegations of breach of the PCR and, following correspondence and some early disclosure, MAK commenced proceedings on 19 June 2025. In its Particulars of Claim, MAK made extensive allegations of multiple types of breach, including that the defendant ought to have excluded GPI from the tender, lack of transparency, failure to investigate abnormally low tenders and scoring challenges. The Particulars of Claim include challenges to over 100 scores and alleged that the reasons provided for over 350 scores awarded were inadequate.
The commencement of the proceedings brought into effect an automatic suspension under Regulation 95(1) preventing the defendant from entering into a contract. On 9 September 2025, the defendant issued this application to lift the suspension (the “AtL”). On 17 October 2025, MAK issued an application for an expedited hearing.
Decision (Jefford J)
Application to lift granted. Application for expedition refused.
- Damages as an adequate remedy for the claimant: Damages were an adequate remedy for the claimant. MAK was a leading provider of blood management services. The new contract would have been worth between 1% and 5% of its total turnover and would have represented less than 0.34% of the blood collections managed by MAK each year. On its face, the contract with the defendant was of marginal to minor financial significance, and damages were plainly an adequate remedy.
- In the absence of cogent evidence and analysis from MAK, the court proceeded on the basis that there were no special or material characteristics of BECS contracts. It was inherently improbable that the loss of this modest contract with WBS would have had any reputational impact. There was no evidence that the contract was of particular interest to the wider market or that it would have been regarded as setting any industry standard. It was neither global in its coverage nor prestige, and any suggestion that it might have affected future bids was vague and speculative.
- Application for expedition: The judge was not satisfied that there was any justification for an expedited hearing of this confined issue. Even if a two-week expedited trial of all issues could have been held in July 2026, there would inevitably have been a substantial delay in implementation, which both militated against maintaining the suspension and removed any justification for an expedited hearing.
- Damages as an adequate remedy for the defendants: The loss of the opportunity to introduce the benefits of the new system within the expected timescales was not a loss that could have been adequately remedied by damages. There was a risk that any further extension or direct award of a subsequent contract would have been subject to challenge and further litigation.
- Balance of convenience: It was not necessary to consider the balance of convenience. Even if it had been, the judge would have found that the balance of convenience favoured lifting the suspension.
Representation
Ewan West KC & Alfred Artley (Monckton Chambers) for the Claimant, instructed by Osborne Clarke.
Rhodri Williams KC & Ben Graff (Keating Chambers) for the Defendants, instructed by NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership.
James Neill (Landmark Chambers) for the Interested Party, instructed by Stephenson Harwood.
The judgment can be found here.
