The first High Court decision under the new Procurement Act 2023 (“the PA2023”) was handed down in Parkingeye Limited v Velindre University NHS Trust & Anor [2026] EWHC 1019 (TCC), on Friday 01 May 2026.

The High Court prescribed a new test for lifting automatic suspension, replacing the previous test under the old regulations and re-emphasising the importance of public interest in procurement challenges.

For advice on the Procurement Act 2023 and its implications for your organisation, contact Edward Quigg

The Judgment

The judgment concerned the procurement of car parking management services for Velindre University NHS Trust. Parkingeye, the incumbent provider, was unsuccessful in re-tendering to continue carrying out such services.

In its challenge, Parkingeye raised a number of concerns with the procurement, alleging factual inaccuracies in the tender and contract award notices, transparency concerns, and alleged use of undisclosed evaluation criteria.

Parkingeye issued its challenge before the relevant contract was signed, and so, automatic suspension kicked in to stop the contracting authority entering into the contract.

The defendant contracting authorities applied to the Court to have the automatic suspension lifted to allow the new contract to proceed.

Changes to Automatic Suspension

Under the previous regime, the test used to lift an automatic suspension was based on the approach taken in American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396. Under this test, the automatic suspension would likely have been lifted if damages were held to be an adequate remedy for the claimant. Public interest in the matter was essentially a secondary factor, to be considered as part of the balance of convenience, only if damages were not deemed an adequate remedy. In the majority of cases damages were held to be an adequate remedy for a commercial supplier, and so suspensions were rarely kept in place. Some felt there was often not much point in trying to resist an application to lift the suspension.

In Parkingeye, by contrast, the Court found that public interest must now be considered in every case, per Section 102(2) of the PA2023, and is to be treated equally with other factors, including adequacy of damages for the claimant, to be weighted according to the circumstances of the case.

The Court ultimately found in favour of Parkingeye and didn’t lift the automatic suspension, even though it was considered that damages could have constituted an adequate remedy. The Court found that the public interest test under section 102(2)(a)(i) of the PA2023 provides that there is a public interest in preventing the finalisation of a contract where the lawfulness of the contract award is in dispute.

Furthermore, the Court also commented that the wording of Section 102(2) “seems to me to show that the public interest will generally tend in favour of keeping the suspension in place although on the facts of particular cases it may weigh differently” (at para. 31).

Stricter Suspension Test, Greater Bidder Leverage

Not only is American Cyanamid definitively obsolete under the PA2023, but the judgment in Parkingeye strongly suggests that the bar for lifting automatic suspension will be very high, with a general view that public interest will favour keeping suspension in place. This is an about face from the old regime.

The import is that an aggrieved bidder can stop the award of a contract, which puts it in a strong negotiating position and it is possible that in more cases the contracting authority will consider the best course of action is to abandon the procurement and start again.

It is important to note, however, that the applicants have sought permission to appeal, and therefore this judgment may not be the last word in the application of the new test to this matter.

If you have any questions on how these developments may affect your organisation or would like to discuss potential challenges or risk mitigation strategies, our procurement team is here to help. You can find our service page and contact details here.