The High Court’s recent decision in ParkingEye Limited v Velindre University NHS Trust & Anor [2026] EWHC 1019 (TCC) is the first judgment on automatic suspension under the Procurement Act 2023 and it signals a potentially significant shift in approach.

Under the previous regime, contracting authorities were often successful in applying to lift an automatic suspension, particularly where damages were considered an adequate remedy for the claimant. However, this decision suggests that the courts may now take a much more cautious stance, with a stronger emphasis on the public interest in maintaining the suspension. 

The court observed 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’.

What happened in ParkingEye?

The case arose from a procurement for car park management services by Velindre University NHS Trust. ParkingEye, an unsuccessful bidder, issued proceedings during the standstill period, triggering the automatic suspension under section 101 of the PA23. This prevented the Trust from proceeding to contract award.

The Trust applied to lift the suspension and the court refused, meaning the suspension remained in place pending resolution of the substantive challenge.

A shift in the legal test

A key takeaway from the judgment is the court’s clear recognition that the Procurement Act 2023 introduces a materially different framework from the previous rules under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

HHJ Keyser KC made clear that “the adequacy of damages for the claimant, though still a relevant matter, no longer has the significance it had” under the previous test. Rather than focusing primarily on whether damages would be an adequate remedy, the court placed significant weight on the statutory factors set out in section 102(2) PA23, and in particular, the public interest in ensuring that public contracts are awarded lawfully. Importantly, the court indicated that where the lawfulness of a procurement is in dispute, there is a strong public interest in not entering into the contract until that dispute is resolved.

Public interest at the forefront 

The judgment suggests that the ‘public interest’ analysis is likely to become the dominant consideration in future cases. As HHJ Keyser KC emphasised, “the public interest will generally tend in favour of keeping the suspension in place”.

In ParkingEye, the court distinguished between:

• genuine risks to the delivery of essential public services (which may justify lifting a suspension); and
• mere delay in implementing a preferred contract (which is unlikely to carry significant weight).

On the facts, the court found that there would be no interruption to parking services if the suspension remained in place, and therefore that there was no compelling reason to lift it. This represents a notable contrast with the previous regime, in which arguments about delay and service improvements were often persuasive.

What does this mean in practice?

For contracting authorities, this decision emphasises the importance of running robust and legally compliant procurement processes from the outset. There may be less scope to rely on lifting an automatic suspension as a fallback position if a challenge is brought.

Authorities seeking to lift a suspension will likely need to provide clear, evidence-based arguments demonstrating a real and significant risk to public services, rather than simply inconvenience or delay.

For bidders, the decision may make challenges more attractive. If courts are more willing to maintain suspensions, claimants may have a greater opportunity to preserve their position pending trial.

Meanwhile, incumbent providers may benefit from the increased likelihood that existing contractual arrangements will need to be extended while disputes are resolved.

Although this is only the first decision under the PA23, it provides an important early indication that the courts may be moving towards a more claimant-friendly approach when it comes to automatic suspensions.

We explore the case and its implications in more detail in our full briefing.  For further information or advice, please get in touch.