Cyberfort Limited v The Lord Chancellor on behalf of HM Courts and Tribunals Service [2026] EWHC 1760 (TCC)

SCCSI

(Providing Elite Certification Programmes to Construction Professionals Since 2009)

Explore Our Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes

Presented by

Society of Construction Claims
Specialists International

sccsinternational.org

Cyberfort Limited v The Lord Chancellor on behalf of HM Courts and Tribunals Service

[2026] EWHC 1760 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Technology and Construction Court

Before Adrian Williamson KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court | Heard 8 July 2026 | Handed down 13 July 2026

Interactive Process Flow | Cyber-security procurement suspension

Case Analysis Process Flow

0 of 7 nodes explored

1. Case Overview

Case: Cyberfort Limited v The Lord Chancellor on behalf of HM Courts and Tribunals Service [2026] EWHC 1760 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Technology and Construction Court
Judge: Adrian Williamson KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
Hearing Date: 8 July 2026
Judgment Date: 13 July 2026
Case No: HT-2026-000054

Cyberfort Limited challenged HM Courts and Tribunals Service's award of a managed cyber-security contract to Accenture. The claim suspended contract-making under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. Cyberfort, the six-year incumbent, said loss of a contract representing about a quarter of its revenue would harm its future tendering, reputation and specialist workforce. The court found damages adequate for Cyberfort, inadequate for HMCTS, and lifted the suspension immediately (paragraphs 1-14 and 21-42).

Central Legal Test: Under American Cyanamid, the court considered a serious issue, adequacy of damages for each party and the balance of convenience. At the damages stages it had to evaluate the written evidence as far as possible, not merely ask whether asserted harm was arguable (paragraphs 15-20).

Parties and Representation

Claimant: Cyberfort Limited, represented by James Neill, instructed by Gateley Legal.

Defendant: The Lord Chancellor acting through HM Courts and Tribunals Service, represented by Samuel Willis, instructed by Sharpe Pritchard LLP.

Service and Procurement

Cyber security protected digitised court, tribunal and probate functions and highly sensitive material. Cyberfort had supplied HMCTS since September 2020. Three bidders competed under a dynamic purchasing system, and Accenture was selected in January 2026 (paragraphs 5-14).

2. Procedural History

Serious Issue Agreed

For the lifting application only, both parties agreed that the substantive challenge raised a serious issue (paragraph 17).

Likely Delay

The evidence and TCC listing enquiries indicated that maintaining the suspension would probably keep all parties in contractual limbo until the end of 2027 (paragraph 40).

3. Defendant's Position

HMCTS said Cyberfort's alleged losses were commercial and measurable, while delay prevented implementation of the cyber-security service and controls it had selected for the justice system (paragraphs 23-40).

Existing Experience Remained Usable

Cyberfort could continue using its HMCTS delivery as recent reference experience, and any provable lost tender chance could be valued by the court (paragraphs 23-24).

Operational Public Interest

The new contract introduced service credits, an innovation obligation, social-value requirements and further benefits identified by HMCTS. Delaying the preferred cyber capability was not a purely financial loss (paragraphs 33-39).

4. Claimant's Position

Cyberfort relied on the contract's revenue contribution and said losing a central-government cyber contract would weaken references, damage trust in the market and cause specialist staff loss and reduced capability (paragraphs 21-30).

Reference Contract

Cyberfort said future public procurements required recent comparable experience and that displacement would reduce its ability to compete for contracts of similar size and nature (paragraphs 21-24).

Reputation and Workforce

It asserted an adverse signal in a trust-sensitive market and a compounding effect on recruitment, retention and morale (paragraphs 25-30).

5. Court's Analysis

Future Tender Loss Could Be Valued

The HMCTS contract remained available as recent reference experience. Courts can assess a lost chance if evidence later shows that loss of the reference caused other work to be lost (paragraphs 23-24).

Reputation Case Was Speculative

Failure to win a tender is part of commercial life. Cyberfort gave vague evidence and did not show any likely financial consequence from the alleged reputational signal (paragraphs 25-27).

No Specific Staff Evidence

Despite six months to prepare, Cyberfort identified no employee or team likely to leave and supplied only general assertions capable of being made after any lost tender (paragraphs 28-31).

HMCTS Loss Was Not Financially Repairable

HMCTS was best placed to choose how its cyber service should operate. Continued suspension denied it the improvements and capability selected for a function vulnerable to potentially catastrophic cyber attack (paragraphs 33-39).

Convenience Favoured Contracting

Long delay, public interest, Accenture's successful position and the status quo ante all supported ending the suspension (paragraph 40).

6. Decision and Outcome

Winner: The Defendant (The Lord Chancellor on behalf of HM Courts and Tribunals Service) succeeded.

Result: The automatic suspension was ended with immediate effect. Damages were adequate for Cyberfort, inadequate for HMCTS, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendant (paragraphs 41-42). The Claimant on the application (Cyberfort Limited) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: HMCTS could enter the managed cyber-security contract with Accenture while Cyberfort pursued its damages challenge.

Cyberfort Confined to Damages

Its commercial loss could be valued if the claim succeeded (paragraphs 21-32).

HMCTS Protected

The public body's selected cyber capability could proceed without waiting until late 2027 (paragraphs 33-42).

7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points

Evidence at Damages Stages

The court should do its best to decide evidential issues relevant to adequacy and convenience, even though it avoids a mini-trial of substantive liability (paragraphs 18-20).

Reference Experience

Loss of a current contract does not erase delivery history. The claimant must show how reference rules will actually exclude or weaken that history (paragraphs 23-24).

Reputation and Staff

General market and morale statements do not prove irreparable harm. Specific people, opportunities, causal consequences and financial effects are needed (paragraphs 25-31).

Public Cyber Security

Delay to a public body's chosen security capability may be non-compensable where operational protection and administration of justice are engaged (paragraphs 33-40).

Practice Implications

For Claimants:
For cyber or specialist-service suspension evidence, identify actual clearance-dependent staff, named pipeline bids, reference eligibility rules and measurable effects. Explain why a later liability judgment and damages would not repair each loss.

For Defendants:
Describe the changed service in contractual terms and connect each improvement to operational and public risk. Provide a realistic trial delay and explain why continuation of the incumbent arrangement is not equivalent.

General Practice Points:
Incumbency, revenue concentration and sector sensitivity do not automatically make damages inadequate. The evidence must move from importance to a specific irremediable consequence.

Legal Disclaimer

This interactive process flow is provided for educational and professional development purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects interpretations and analyses that may not apply to specific circumstances. Contract interpretation depends on specific wording, jurisdiction, and factual context. Always consult qualified legal professionals before making decisions based on this content. SCCSI and its contributors accept no liability for reliance on this material.