Mitie Care and Custody Limited v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 867 (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

Mitie Care and Custody Limited v Secretary of State for the Home Department

[2026] EWHC 867 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Technology and Construction Court (KBD)

Before Mr Roger ter Haar KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge | Heard 23 March 2026 | Handed down 16 April 2026

Interactive Process Flow | Migration-services procurement suspension and expedition

Case Analysis Process Flow

0 of 7 nodes explored

1. Case Overview

Case: Mitie Care and Custody Limited v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 867 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Technology and Construction Court (KBD)
Judge: Mr Roger ter Haar KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Hearing Date: 23 March 2026
Judgment Date: 16 April 2026
Case No: HT-2026-000049

Mitie Care and Custody Limited challenged the Home Office's award of a contract for irregular-migration management services at Western Jet Foil and Manston to an MTCD consortium. The Home Office applied to lift the automatic suspension; Mitie sought an expedited or staged trial and proposed a late amendment. The court accepted a serious issue for the interim application but held that damages could adequately compensate Mitie, refused expedition and lifted the suspension (paragraphs 1-4, 44-65 and 75-85).

Central Legal Test: The court applied the American Cyanamid procurement test and considered expedition under the WL Gore factors: good reason, administration of justice, prejudice and special features. Mitie had to prove a real risk of commercial harm not fairly reparable in damages; the court also considered the public-service consequences of delay (paragraphs 38-47 and 66-84).

Parties and Representation

Claimant: Mitie Care and Custody Limited, represented by Ewan West KC and Clíodhna Kelleher, instructed by Osborne Clarke LLP.

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department, represented by Azeem Suterwalla KC, instructed by the Government Legal Department.

The Services

The sites register, process and manage the acute needs of people arriving irregularly, including by small boat. The procurement consolidated services then supplied through several contracts into a single operator contract, alongside a healthcare contract (paragraphs 7-13).

Challenge Grounds

Mitie questioned the successful consortium's staffing model, price and a conflict arising from a former Home Office employee. Late confidential disclosure led to a proposed third ground and alternative staged-trial plans (paragraphs 14-37 and 48-62).

2. Procedural History

Late Disclosure and Confidentiality

Key documents were disclosed shortly before the hearing under a lawyers-only confidentiality ring. The court accepted that this complicated instructions and explained some development in Mitie's case (paragraphs 4 and 14-37).

Expedition Proposals

Mitie proposed either an eight-day trial of all three grounds or a six-day trial of two grounds with the conflict issue stayed. It sought a June or July 2026 trial (paragraphs 47-64).

3. Defendant's Position

The Home Office said Mitie's commercial losses were quantifiable, its reputation and workforce claims lacked evidence, and it retained similar substantial contracts. Delay would postpone a consolidated, accountable and flexible service model for a sensitive public function (paragraphs 67-84).

Mitie Remained in the Market

Mitie held multiple Home Office, immigration, custody, healthcare and facilities contracts. The Home Office said it had not identified specialist staff who would be lost or shown that future bids would be impaired (paragraph 67).

Benefits of the New Model

The Home Office sought one accountable supplier, flexible and evidenced staffing, emergency rates, tailored performance management, partnership with healthcare, innovation and social-value mechanisms (paragraphs 76-83).

4. Claimant's Position

Mitie said the six-to-ten-year consolidated contract was unique, losing it would remove Mitie from this market segment, erode specialist staff and references, and confer a lasting competitive advantage on the consortium (paragraphs 66-75).

Market Closure

Mitie argued that one consolidated contract would occupy the relevant small-boats reception market for years and that its other profitable work did not replace that lost segment (paragraph 66).

People and Reputation

Mitie alleged loss of experienced personnel, reduced ability to compete for the successor and reputational harm from displacement by the successful consortium (paragraph 66).

Early Trial

Mitie said a staged and expedited determination could preserve a practical remedy and allow the Home Office to contract by autumn if Mitie lost (paragraphs 47-64).

5. Court's Analysis

Developing Pleadings Were Understandable

An unsuccessful tenderer often has limited visibility and must amend after early disclosure. The shifting grounds were not themselves adverse, although the original conflict issue had become secondary (paragraphs 53-57).

No Case for Expedition After Damages Finding

A June or July trial posed serious logistical and fairness problems, particularly with a new ground and possible appeal. Once damages were found adequate, expedition was inappropriate (paragraphs 58-65).

Reputation and Staff Evidence Was Insufficient

The contract was substantial but only a limited part of Mitie's business. Mitie held similar Home Office work and gave no substantial evidence of third-party perceptions, specific specialist losses or reduced bid capability (paragraphs 66-75).

Public-Service Delay Was Not Compensable

The court accepted that the Home Office genuinely valued the new service and wished to implement it promptly. Financial compensation could not remedy delay to the intended operational and public benefits (paragraphs 76-84).

6. Decision and Outcome

Winner: The Defendant (Secretary of State for the Home Department) succeeded.

Result: The Home Office's application succeeded and the automatic suspension was lifted. Mitie's expedited-trial application was dismissed (paragraphs 84-85). The Claimant on the applications (Mitie Care and Custody Limited) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: The Home Office could contract with the MTCD consortium while Mitie's damages claim continued. Mitie lost the prospect of preserving contract-award relief through a rapid staged trial.

Damages Adequate for Mitie

Mitie did not prove irreparable reputation, workforce or market-access loss (paragraphs 66-75).

Damages Inadequate for Home Office

Delayed implementation of the new public-service model could not be repaired by money (paragraphs 76-83).

Suspension Lifted and Expedition Refused

Both applications were decided in the Home Office's favour (paragraphs 84-85).

7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points

Sequential Test With Flexibility

Adequacy of claimant damages will normally determine the application, though evidence on later limbs and possible trial timing may inform that question (paragraphs 38-43).

Evolving Procurement Claim

Changes following early disclosure are common and do not alone show weakness, but expedition still requires a fair and workable pleading, evidence and hearing timetable (paragraphs 47-65).

Evidence of Intangible Harm

The more a claim relies on reputation, staff or future opportunities rather than direct cost and profit, the clearer and more specific the evidence must be (paragraphs 66-75).

Public-Service Harm

Where continued suspension delays a desired form of public service rather than merely increasing its price, damages may be inadequate for the authority (paragraphs 76-84).

Practice Implications

For Claimants:
Seek early disclosure promptly and explain amendments by reference to what the new material revealed. For expedition, provide a stable pleading, realistic witness plan and appeal-aware timetable. Identify specific staff, opportunities and financial effects said to be irrecoverable.

For Defendants:
Give early disclosure that allows the challenge to be understood, while tailoring confidentiality protection to what is necessary. On lifting, evidence the operational change sought and why delay harms service users in ways money cannot repair.

General Practice Points:
Procurement confidentiality rings should admit suitable client representatives where instructions are needed. Expedition and suspension should be addressed together, with a realistic view of disclosure, amendments, trial length, judgment and appeal.

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.