Local Government Lawyer

Demo Midpage Premium

Default Image
Jul 03, 2025

AI, copyright and LLMs

What are the copyright and confidentiality issues arising from use of public and private Large Language Models (LLMs)? Justin Harrington…
July 03, 2025

FOI and communication

The Upper Tribunal recently considered the meaning of ‘reasonably practicable’ in s11 of the Freedom of Information Act. Jonathan Dixey analyses the ruling.
Jul 03, 2025

Too much?

In the fourth and final article on a Court of Appeal judgment that involved an exploration of the law and procedure relating to challenges…

Jun 27, 2025

Closures of educational sites

The Court of Appeal recently refused permission to appeal in judicial review proceedings concerning the decision to close part of a school…
Jun 25, 2025

Public law case update Q1 2025

Kieran Laird and Sophie O’Mahoney offer a straightforward and concise overview of six public law and regulation cases from the first…

Jun 25, 2025

AI solutions: the contractual issues

What are the key contractual issues that public sector organisations should prepare for when implementing an AI solution? Justin Harrington…
Jun 20, 2025

Negotiating s106 agreements

Why does negotiating section 106 agreements have to be such a drag? Simon Ricketts looks at the key issues.
Jun 20, 2025

Heat network zoning coordination

Carrie Davies sets out some early-stage considerations for local authorities when it comes to heat network zoning coordination.
Jun 20, 2025

Mediating PFIs

Mediation is a potentially underused tool for unlocking contract disputes arising out of PFI, write Emma Beynon and Andrew Lancaster.
Jun 20, 2025

Generative AI and data protection

Justin Harrington sets out what UK public sector organisations need to know when it comes to generative AI and data protection.
Jun 19, 2025

The final say

The Court of Protection has provided an important reminder that it is the judge who has the final say as to best interests, writes Alex…
Jun 18, 2025

Too late

In the second article of a series on challenges to decisions about care for young people brought after the event, Catherine Rowlands looks…
Jun 18, 2025

One teacher, two jobs

Alexandra Addington looks at a recent disciplinary hearing concerning a teacher who phoned in sick to work at a different school, and…
Jun 18, 2025

Too little? Or too late?

In the first in a series of articles, Catherine Rowlands examines a Court of Appeal judgment that involved a wide-ranging exploration of…
Jun 13, 2025

Unlocking legal talent

Jonathan Bourne sets out why in-house council teams and law firms should embrace apprenticeships.
Jun 12, 2025

AI in the UK public sector

In the first in a series of articles on the adoption of AI by the public sector, Justin Harrington sets out some use cases and provides a…
Jun 11, 2025

Subsidy control: referral of subsidies

The financial threshold for referral of subsidies to the Competition Markets Authority is to increase from £10m to £25m with effect from 4…

Tim Care provides a summary of the recent case of Unipart Group Ltd v Supply Chain Coordination Ltd [2025], and assesses its impact upon the application of the Public Contract Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015).

The facts

The Defendant, Supply Chain Coordination Ltd (SCCL), conducted a competitive procurement exercise for the award of a major logistics contract intended to modernise NHS supply chain services. The contract was awarded to GXO Logistics UK Ltd (GXO) following a multistage tender process.

Unipart Group Ltd (Unipart), the incumbent supplier, and DHL Supply Chain Ltd (DHL), both unsuccessful bidders, brought legal challenges alleging breaches of the PCR 2015.

As a result of these challenges, the automatic suspension under Regulation 95 of the PCR 2015 came into effect, preventing SCCL from concluding the contract with GXO. SCCL applied to lift the suspension, prompting the Court to assess whether interim relief should remain in place pending trial.

The American Cyanamid Test

In determining whether to lift the suspension, the Court applied the four-limb American Cyanamid test:

  1. Whether there was a serious issue to be tried.
  2. Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimants if the suspension were lifted.
  3. Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the defendant if the suspension remained in place.
  4. Where the balance of convenience lay.

The judgement

Serious issue to be tried

The first question the Court must ask is whether the claim being brought has enough substance to warrant a full trial.

DHL alleged that a former SCCL executive assisted GXO (the winning bidder) in preparing their bid soon after leaving SCCL. DHL claimed that SCCL mishandled this potential conflict of interest and failed to treat bidders equally. The Court agreed this was a serious allegation to justify a full hearing.

Unipart brought two separate sets of legal proceedings against SCCL relating to the same NHS logistics procurement process:

  1. The First Claim – Challenge to Exclusion from the Process
    Unipart was excluded at an early stage of the procurement process. It challenged this exclusion on grounds including errors in evaluation and unfair treatment. However, Unipart did not apply for an injunction at this stage.
  2.  The Second Claim – Challenge to the Award Decision
    After SCCL awarded the contract to GXO, Unipart issued a second legal claim. This focused on SCCL’s failure to provide proper information in the Contract Award Notice, such as the reasons for awarding the contract to GXO and GXO’s scores. This, Unipart argued, breached Regulation 86 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which requires certain disclosures to all eligible tenderers.

SCCL argued that Unipart should not be allowed to challenge the award decision because it had already been excluded earlier in the process and had not sought to suspend the procurement at that time. In SCCL’s view, Unipart had ‘missed its chance’.

The Court held that because Unipart’s exclusion had not yet been ruled lawful by the Court, Unipart remained entitled to be notified of the award decision and the reasons for it. Therefore, Unipart’s second claim, focusing on transparency and fairness at the contract award stage, raised serious legal questions that should be fully heard at trial.

Adequacy of damages for the Claimants

This part of the test asks whether financial renumeration would be enough to compensate for the harm caused if the Court allows the contract to be awarded and the claimant later wins their case.

For DHL, the Court found that damages would be an adequate remedy. DHL failed to provide specific evidence of irrecoverable reputational or financial loss. The judge noted in particular that DHL’s performance and profitability had remained robust following its previous loss of the NHS contract in 2018.

Unipart, in contrast, was found to be in a more vulnerable position. As the incumbent provider and a smaller market player, Unipart was more exposed to the reputational and commercial consequences of losing the contract. Although the Court was not wholly convinced by the strength of Unipart’s evidence, it accepted—just—that damages might not be an adequate remedy and that there was a real risk of irreparable harm.

Adequacy of damages for SCCL

The Court accepted SCCL’s argument that damages would not be an adequate remedy if the suspension were maintained. The contract formed part of a wider NHS transformation initiative, including the critical “Project Tokyo” IT modernisation programme.

SCCL had provided evidence that reliance on the current NHS IT system (RESUS) posed serious risks to supply chain operations. The Court accepted that further delay in implementing the new contract would pose operational and public interest risks that damages could not remedy.

Balance of convenience

In the final stage, the Court must balance the competing harms in lifting the suspension and decide which option causes less overall risk or injustice.

Ultimately, the Court held that the balance of convenience strongly favoured lifting the suspension. While Unipart’s claim just passed the adequacy of damages threshold, the broader risks to NHS logistics and the public interest in progressing Project Tokyo outweighed the potential harm to Unipart.

The Court therefore granted SCCL’s application and lifted the automatic suspension, enabling the contract to be awarded to GXO. However, the procurement challenge brought by Unipart and DHL will still proceed to trial, albeit without interrupting the rollout of the new logistics arrangements.

What this means

The decision confirms that the courts are willing to lift an automatic suspension where there are compelling public interest justifications for doing so.

This case also remains relevant when applying the new procurement regime under the Procurement Act 2023, as Section 102 states that the courts should have regard to the public interest in (among others) avoiding delay in the supply of the goods, services or works provided for in the contract being procured.

However, to avoid legal challenge, authorities should ensure that they maintain robust procurement records and manage potential conflicts of interest carefully.

Tim Care is a partner at Ward Hadaway.

Events

Demo Premium Event