Mak Systems Group Limited v Velindre University NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 8 (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

Mak Systems Group Limited v
Velindre University NHS Trust

[2026] EWHC 8 (TCC) | Technology and Construction Court

Before The Honourable Mrs Justice Jefford DBE | Heard 18 November 2025 | Handed down 2 January 2026

Interactive Process Flow | Automatic Suspension and Expedited Trial in a Procurement Challenge

Case Analysis Process Flow

0 of 7 nodes explored

1. Case Overview

Case: Mak Systems Group Limited v Velindre University NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 8 (TCC)
Court: Technology and Construction Court, King's Bench Division
Judge: The Honourable Mrs Justice Jefford DBE
Hearing Date: 18 November 2025
Judgment Date: 2 January 2026
Case No: HT-2025-000186

The Welsh Blood Service, an operating division of Velindre University NHS Trust, procured a new blood establishment computer system. Mak Systems Group Limited was the incumbent supplier. GPI SpA won the competition, while MAK was placed third. MAK began proceedings alleging breaches of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which triggered an automatic suspension preventing the Trust from entering into the contract. This judgment determined the Trust's application to lift that suspension and MAK's application for an expedited trial. It did not decide the merits of MAK's procurement challenge (paragraphs 1-6 and 44-45).

Central Legal Test: The American Cyanamid questions governing whether a procurement suspension should remain, together with the established factors for expedition (paragraphs 11-20)

Parties and Procurement

Claimant: Mak Systems Group Limited ("MAK"), the incumbent supplier of the eProgesa blood management software since 2015

Defendant: Velindre University NHS Trust, whose Welsh Blood Service division conducted the procurement

Interested Party: GPI SpA, the successful bidder

Procurement: A new blood establishment computer system with nearly 300 specification requirements. GPI scored 81.50 per cent and MAK was placed third (paragraphs 1-4)

Core Dispute

MAK's underlying claim alleged many breaches of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, including a case that GPI should have been excluded, lack of transparency, failure to investigate an allegedly abnormally low tender, scoring challenges and inadequate reasons (paragraph 5).

The applications before the court concerned interim relief. The Trust asked the court to lift the automatic suspension imposed by regulation 95(1). MAK asked for an expedited trial, later proposing an expedited trial of the regulatory compliance issue alone (paragraphs 6, 68 and 81).

2. Procedural History

Chronology of Proceedings

11 October 2024: The procurement was advertised and the invitation to tender issued (paragraph 4)

11 November 2024: Deadline for bids (paragraph 4)

9 May 2025: Bidders were told that GPI was successful (paragraph 4)

23 May 2025: A revised award notification was issued (paragraph 4)

19 June 2025: MAK commenced proceedings (paragraph 5)

26 June 2025: MAK served its 94-page Particulars of Claim (paragraph 5)

September 2025: The Trust issued its application to lift the automatic suspension (paragraphs 6 and 102)

17 October 2025: MAK applied for an expedited hearing (paragraph 6)

18 November 2025: Both applications were heard

2 January 2026: Judgment was handed down

Applications and Evidence

Application to Lift: The Trust sought permission to enter into the contract with GPI despite MAK's continuing procurement claim (paragraph 6).

Expedition Application: MAK first sought an expedited trial of all issues, then proposed a six-day trial of the regulatory compliance issue alone (paragraphs 68 and 81).

Evidence Ruling: The court refused permission for MAK to rely on further evidence that exceeded the limited permission previously given for reply evidence on expedition. It also refused responsive evidence from GPI (paragraph 10).

3. Defendant and Interested Party Positions

The Trust accepted, for these applications only, that there was a serious issue to be tried. It argued that damages would adequately compensate MAK, whereas continued suspension would delay implementation of the new system and benefits that could not be compensated in damages. It opposed expedition because the claim was too large and complex for the timetable proposed (paragraphs 14, 46-49 and 68-80).

Damages Would Compensate MAK

The Trust relied on MAK's scale, turnover and global market position. The new contract represented between 1 and 5 per cent of MAK's turnover, and the Welsh service covered less than 0.34 per cent of the blood collections managed by MAK each year (paragraphs 46-49).

It submitted that MAK's alleged reputational harm was unsupported. MAK already held other national and international contracts, while the evidence did not show that this Welsh procurement carried unusual prestige or was being watched as a market standard (paragraphs 52-63).

Implementation and Public Benefit

The Trust expected configuration, data migration, testing and validation to take about two and a half years. GPI offered to provide the minimum system and most additional modules from the planned commencement date (paragraphs 69-75).

The Trust said further delay would postpone improvements in safety support, auditability, traceability, donor services, administration, stock management and the donor experience. The procurement also responded to recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry concerning digital transformation and electronic systems (paragraphs 75 and 78).

Opposition to Expedition and Alternatives

The Trust submitted that the claim could not realistically be tried in two weeks. By the hearing, its estimate was at least four weeks because MAK challenged more than 100 scores and alleged inadequate reasons for more than 350 scores (paragraphs 5 and 80).

It disputed that another extension of MAK's existing contract, a direct award or a conditional contract with GPI provided a lawful or workable answer. Each course involved legal risk, delay or uncertainty (paragraphs 93-100).

4. Claimant's Position

MAK argued that the suspension should remain pending an expedited trial. It relied on alleged regulatory non-compliance in GPI's product, possible patient-safety consequences, reputational and future-bid harm, and the availability of measures that it said could protect the Trust while the claim was decided (paragraphs 28-30, 50-55, 64 and 81-84).

Reputation and Future Opportunities

MAK said changes of supplier were unusual in the blood-establishment systems market and would attract attention from other blood-service authorities. It argued that losing an NHS contract to GPI could damage its credibility and reduce its prospects in forthcoming procurements in the UK and Europe (paragraphs 52-55).

MAK also contended that GPI's success with an allegedly non-compliant product would give GPI an unfair advantage in later competitions (paragraph 64).

Regulatory Compliance and Patient Safety

MAK alleged that GPI's system was an in vitro diagnostic medical device, or an accessory to one, and required compliance with the relevant in vitro diagnostic regime and conformity marking. It said GPI's product did not have the required status and should have been excluded (paragraphs 23-30).

MAK relied on possible patient-safety consequences. It proposed an expedited trial of this compliance issue so the suspension could remain until that issue was determined (paragraphs 81-84).

Expedition and Protective Measures

MAK initially sought an expedited trial of all issues and later proposed a six-day hearing of the compliance issue in May 2026 (paragraphs 68 and 81).

It argued that its existing contract could be extended, that a further direct award might be lawful, or that the Trust might enter into a conditional or enabling arrangement with GPI. MAK also confirmed an undertaking in damages, although no undertaking was offered for loss suffered by GPI (paragraphs 93-104).

5. Court's Analysis

American Cyanamid Framework

The court applied the questions stated in Camelot Lotteries Ltd v Gambling Commission [2022] EWHC 1664 (TCC): whether there is a serious issue to be tried; whether damages would adequately compensate the claimant; whether damages would adequately compensate the defendant; and, if doubt remains, which course carries the least risk of injustice (paragraphs 11-13).

The Trust conceded a serious issue to be tried only for the purpose of the application. The court did not conduct a trial of the procurement merits (paragraphs 14 and 21-22).

Adequacy of Damages for MAK

The court found that damages were an adequate remedy for MAK. The contract was modest compared with MAK's turnover and business reach. MAK's evidence did not establish that losing this contract would damage its reputation or future prospects in a way that damages could not address (paragraphs 46-67).

The court rejected the suggestion that this NHS contract had special prestige. The evidence about future procurement harm was described as vague and speculative, and the court would not give MAK's regulatory allegations implied merit at an interim stage (paragraphs 56-67).

Expedition and Compliance Issue

The court refused to determine the regulatory compliance issue through a mini-trial on the interim applications. The issue involved several layers concerning the specification, the regulatory classification of a BECS and GPI's product compliance (paragraphs 44-45).

A full trial required at least four weeks and judgment by the end of summer 2026 was improbable. A separate expedited trial of the compliance issue was also refused. The evidence did not justify treating GPI's system as presenting a patient-safety risk at this stage (paragraphs 79-89).

The Trust's Loss and Balance of Convenience

Delay to implementation would deprive the Trust of service improvements within its expected timetable. The court held that this loss could not be adequately remedied in damages (paragraphs 91-92).

A further extension of MAK's contract or a conditional contract with GPI was uncertain and exposed the Trust to legal or practical risk (paragraphs 93-100). The court did not need to decide the balance of convenience, but stated that it strongly favoured lifting the suspension if that stage had been reached (paragraphs 105-109).

6. Decision and Outcome

Winner: The Defendant, Velindre University NHS Trust, succeeded on the applications determined by this judgment.

Result: The automatic suspension was lifted. MAK's application for an expedited trial, whether of the whole claim or the regulatory compliance issue, was dismissed (paragraphs 89 and 110).

Practical Effect: The Trust was no longer prevented by regulation 95(1) from entering into the contract with GPI. MAK's underlying procurement claim remained unresolved and could continue as a claim in which damages were available if liability and causation were later established.

Specific Rulings

1. Serious Issue: Conceded by the Trust for the application only; the merits were not decided (paragraph 14)

2. MAK's Remedy: Damages were adequate for MAK (paragraphs 49 and 56-67)

3. Expedition: No expedited trial of the whole claim or the compliance issue was justified (paragraphs 81 and 89)

4. Trust's Remedy: Delay to the new system and its benefits could not be adequately compensated in damages (paragraphs 91-92)

5. Balance of Convenience: Not required for the decision, but it would strongly favour lifting the suspension (paragraphs 105-109)

6. Final Order: The Trust's application succeeded; the suspension was lifted; MAK's expedition application was dismissed (paragraph 110)

Effect on the Continuing Claim

The judgment did not determine whether the procurement breached the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, whether GPI's product met the relevant regulatory requirements, or whether MAK was entitled to damages.

The immediate effect was confined to interim relief: the Trust could proceed without the automatic suspension, while MAK's pleaded challenge remained to be determined or otherwise resolved (paragraphs 5, 14, 44-45 and 110).

7. Legal principles and practice points

Automatic Suspension Applications

Serious Issue: Once a serious issue is established or conceded, the court does not normally conduct a mini-trial of a complex procurement claim. Relative merits matter only in exceptional circumstances involving a simple knock-out point (paragraphs 11-14 and 21).

Adequacy of Damages: A commercial bidder must provide cogent evidence that alleged reputational or opportunity loss will cause financial harm that damages cannot address. Losing an incumbent contract does not itself meet that standard (paragraphs 50-63).

Public Body Loss: Delay preventing a public authority from implementing services and benefits on its chosen timetable may be incapable of compensation in damages (paragraphs 91-92).

Expedition and Procurement Management

Expedition: Good reason, the administration of justice, prejudice and special factors must all be considered. A procurement claimant does not obtain expedition merely because an automatic suspension is in place (paragraphs 15-20).

Realistic Trial Estimate: The breadth of scoring challenges, evidence and legal issues must be reflected honestly in the proposed timetable. An unrealistically short estimate does not justify expedition (paragraphs 68-81).

Implementation Evidence: A contracting authority should explain the implementation period, the benefits expected from the new contract and the consequences of delay. The court may give weight to the authority's assessment of how public services should be delivered (paragraphs 69-78 and 91).

Practice Implications

For Challenging Bidders:
Support alleged reputational or future-bid loss with evidence linking the lost contract to financial harm that damages cannot remedy. Keep interim arguments separate from the merits of the procurement claim.

For Contracting Authorities:
Evidence the implementation programme, public-service benefits and consequences of delay. Explain why extensions, interim arrangements or direct awards do not provide a lawful and workable alternative.

For Successful Bidders:
Provide evidence on implementation, regulatory status and the practical effects of continued suspension where those matters bear on the risk of injustice. Avoid inviting the court to decide the procurement merits at the interim stage.

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.