First Procurement Act 2023 Judgment: What it Means for Authorities and Suppliers

Juli Lau and Melodi Mangan analyse the first court judgment under the Procurement Act 2023 and what it means for Authorities and Suppliers.

The first court judgment under section 102 of the Procurement Act 2023 offers an early indication of how judges may approach automatic suspension applications, with practical implications for both contracting authorities and suppliers navigating procurement challenges and standstill strategy.

What happened in the first Procurement Act 2023 case 

Parkingeye Limited v Velindre University NHS Trust & Anor [2026] EWHC 1019 (TCC)  https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/tcc/2026/1019 concerned an application by Velindre University NHS Trust and Cardiff and Vale University under s102(2) of the Procurement Act 2023 (“PA23”) to lift an automatic suspension preventing the award of a public contract for car park management services.

The automatic suspension had been triggered by a claim issued by Parkingeye Limited, the incumbent provider of car park management services for Cardiff and Vale, which challenged a procurement award decision made in favour of a different service provider pursuant to a PA23 procurement. 

HHJ Keyser refused the application and maintained the suspension, finding no sufficient countervailing public or third‑party private interest to outweigh the public interest in maintaining it. 

Early signals on how the courts may approach procurement challenges 

The judgment suggests that the wording of section 102 of the PA23, in relation to lifting the automatic suspension, represents more than a purely linguistic change from the American Cyanamid approach mandated by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (the “PCR”).

HHJ Keyser stated, at paragraph 30 of the judgment, that

“the new test is intended to be substantively and not merely formally very different, in both its method and its effect, from the former test as found in regulation 96(2) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015”.

The court outlined the following key differences under the new regime:

• The test for an interim injunction is no longer in operation (American Cyanamid), such that there is less emphasis on the adequacy of damages.

• The ordering of matters in s102 has changed, emphasising the departure from the former test and that the public interest test can be considered at the outset.

• The specific examples of public interest in s102(2)(a) of the PA23 give a clear indication of how the public interest test is meant to operate, such 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” (paragraph 31 of the judgment). Public interest in lifting the suspension “will generally concern the interest in the continuing provision of goods and services rather than merely the contracting authority’s judgment as to its preferred provider of the goods and services or the detailed terms on which they will be provided” (paragraph 36 of the judgment).  

HHJ Keyser concluded that:

“in my judgment, the statutory suspension and the new test for applications to lift the suspension are clearly intended to ensure that proper weight is given to the public interest in ensuring that public contracts are awarded in accordance with the law and that, accordingly, the courts do not too lightly lift suspensions” 

(paragraph 85 of the judgment)

Procedural issues 

While this judgment concerned the lifting of the automatic suspension of contract award (and not the merits of the substantive case), it is interesting to note some of the grounds for challenge mentioned in the judgment. Most of these are not different in principle from claims brought under the previous regime, but they rely on specific procedural points and language unique to the PA23. 

These include claims that:

• The tender notice contained a number of errors.

• There were discrepancies between conditions of participation stated in the tender notice and those set out and applied in the associated tender documents.

• The published evaluation methodology was not followed.

• The applicant’s record-keeping was deficient and unlawful.

• Bidders had been treated differently without justification, including by assessing bids with reference to unclear and/or undisclosed criteria.

Key implications for contracting authorities 

The decision indicates that contracting authorities may face greater difficulty in securing the lifting of an automatic suspension under the PA23. Careful attention will need to be paid to the factors the court placed importance on in making public interest assessments, which are required to go beyond merely the provision of services in accordance with the procurement decision and instead focus on whether there will be a substantial deprivation of services as a result of the suspension. The fact that there is a dispute as to the lawfulness of an award procedure is to be given weight when considering the public interest in lifting a suspension to allow such an award to proceed.

It is also worth noting that the judge has given the first indication of how PA23 technical guidance will be treated judicially, stating, in relation to the government’s “Guidance: Remedies”, that it “has no statutory authority and cannot be taken to demonstrate the intention of Parliament. However, it is capable of being of some persuasive authority”. This is an important reminder to procurement practitioners to always err on the side of the PA23 and its associated secondary legislation when faced with any nuanced differences contained in published guidance.

It is also noteworthy that HHJ Keyser did not consider the contracting authorities’ attempt to rely on a public interest in avoiding further extensions of the existing contract with Parkingeye, due to what they considered was an increased risk of legal challenge, as having “any real weight in the balance”.

What the decision means for suppliers 

Under the previous regime, the vast majority of applications to lift the automatic suspension under the PCR were successful and decided in favour of contracting authorities. Under the PA23, that trend may no longer hold, and there may now be a change of tide when it comes to unsuccessful bidders weighing up the advantages of bringing a claim of PA23 breach during a standstill period. 

Juli Lau is a Partner and Melodi Mangan is a Trainee Solicitor at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.

---

For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.

 

 

Visit Sharpe Pritchard's new Building Safety Hub, focusing on The Building Safety Act 2022 and its wide-ranging impact.

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..