Specialists International
This Knowledge Check tests your understanding of the decision of the Technology and Construction Court in Mitie Care and Custody Limited v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 867 (TCC). An unsuccessful tenderer challenged a public procurement, and the court had to decide whether to lift the automatic suspension that barred it from entering the contract and whether to order an expedited trial. The judgment matters to anyone bringing or defending a procurement claim, because it applies the interim injunction test to the suspension and works through when damages are, or are not, an adequate remedy for a disappointed bidder and for a public authority.
The Home Office procured a contract for irregular migration management services at the Western Jet Foil disembarkation site and the Manston reception centre in Kent, consolidating several existing contracts. Mitie, an incumbent supplier, bid but was unsuccessful; on 20 January 2026 the Home Office decided to award the contract to a consortium led by MTC Definitive Limited. Mitie challenged the award on grounds including an alleged conflict of interest, an abnormally low price and a departure from the minimum staffing requirements, and the claim triggered the automatic suspension. The Home Office applied to lift it and Mitie applied for an expedited trial. Roger ter Haar KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, heard the applications on 23 March 2026 and handed down judgment on 16 April 2026.
The court applied the American Cyanamid framework as used in procurement cases, drawing on Covanta Energy Ltd v Mersey Waste Disposal Authority, National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v Olint Corp Ltd, Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd v London Underground Ltd, Cubic Transportation Systems Ltd v Transport for London, Openview Security Solutions Ltd v London Borough of Merton, One Medicare v NHS Northamptonshire Integrated Care Board and Medequip Assistive Technology Ltd v Kensington and Chelsea. It held that damages would adequately compensate Mitie but would not do so for the Home Office, dismissed the expedition application, and lifted the suspension.
- The parties, the procurement and the unsuccessful bid
- The two applications before the court and the automatic suspension
- The winning consortium and Mitie's grounds of challenge
- The American Cyanamid framework for lifting the suspension
- The serious issue to be tried step
- The burden on the tenderer to show damages are inadequate
- The high threshold for loss of reputation
- The approach to loss of specialist staff
- Why damages were an adequate remedy for Mitie
- Why damages were not adequate for the Home Office, and the outcome