Parkingeye Limited v Velindre University NHS Trust and Cardiff and Vale University Health Board [2026] EWHC 1019 (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

Parkingeye Limited v Velindre University NHS Trust and Cardiff and Vale University Health Board

[2026] EWHC 1019 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts in Wales, Technology and Construction Court (KBD)

Before His Honour Judge Keyser KC sitting as a Judge of the High Court | Heard 22 April 2026 | Handed down 1 May 2026

Interactive Process Flow | First application of the Procurement Act 2023 suspension test

Case Analysis Process Flow

0 of 7 nodes explored

1. Case Overview

Case: Parkingeye Limited v Velindre University NHS Trust and Cardiff and Vale University Health Board [2026] EWHC 1019 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts in Wales, Technology and Construction Court (KBD)
Judge: His Honour Judge Keyser KC sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Hearing Date: 22 April 2026
Judgment Date: 1 May 2026
Case No: HT-2026-CDF-000003 and HT-2026-CDF-000004

Parkingeye Limited challenged the proposed award of NHS car-park management services to National Parking Control Group Limited. Velindre University NHS Trust and Cardiff and Vale University Health Board applied under section 102(2) of the Procurement Act 2023 to lift the statutory suspension. The judgment interpreted the new procurement-specific interim-remedies test, which replaced American Cyanamid. The court found no public or private interest sufficient to outweigh the public interest in resolving the lawfulness challenge before contract award and refused both applications, subject to an undertaking in damages (paragraphs 1-6, 23-36 and 60-85).

Central Legal Test: Section 102(2) requires a single balance of the public interest, supplier interests including adequacy of damages, and any other relevant matter. No factor has statutory priority. However, the public interest in lawful contract awards gives real weight to maintaining suspension, and lifting generally requires a persuasive countervailing public interest or overriding private interest (paragraphs 25-36).

Parties and Representation

Claimant/Respondent: Parkingeye Limited, represented by Stephen Kosmin and Oliver Jackson, instructed by DWF Law LLP.

Defendants/Applicants: Velindre University NHS Trust and Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, represented by Jorren Knibbe, instructed by NWSSP Legal & Risk Services.

Procurement

The incumbent managed about 59 car parks across five NHS sites. The new contract ran for five years with an extension option and used a technical score plus a share of Parking Charge Notice income. NPCG scored 84 per cent and Parkingeye 68 per cent (paragraphs 37-53).

Claim

Parkingeye alleged the wrong authority and value were stated, a concession regime was omitted, participation conditions were not applied, evaluation and records were defective, specifications were unclear, bidders were treated unequally and scores were unlawful. It sought pre-contract relief, not damages (paragraphs 54-59).

2. Procedural History

Two Claims

Parkingeye issued one claim after the first award notice and another after corrected assessment summaries and a revised notice. The applications to lift were materially identical (paragraphs 1-2 and 46-53).

Future Case Management

A case management conference was fixed for 1 June 2026. The judge considered a judgment by year-end achievable and treated the litigation timetable as relevant to the balance (paragraphs 53 and 83).

Undertaking

Parkingeye offered to compensate reasonable loss directly caused to the applicants or NPCG by continuation of the suspension. The court required a standard-form undertaking in damages (paragraphs 84-85).

3. Defendant's Position

The NHS applicants said the new contract would improve staffing, helpdesk access, monitoring, permit appeals, online control and revenue sharing. They argued that damages could compensate Parkingeye and that further extensions of the incumbent contract carried legal risk (paragraphs 59-67 and 69-79).

Public-Service Benefits

The applicants relied on better patient and visitor experience, a manned helpdesk, monitoring, appeals and online permit control, plus income sharing (paragraphs 63-66).

Damages and Supplier Interests

They said Parkingeye's commercial interest could be valued from its bid and incumbent records and that NPCG's success should not be delayed (paragraphs 68-79).

Limitation and Merits

The Defence raised serious limitation points and denied most alleged breaches, but the court did not undertake a mini-trial or decide whether the substantive claim would succeed (paragraphs 58-61 and 80).

4. Claimant's Position

Parkingeye relied on the new statutory emphasis on lawful awards, the availability of continued incumbent services and offers to match key new benefits. It said damages were neither sought nor adequate and that contract award would destroy its pre-contract remedy (paragraphs 60-85).

Lawful Award Interest

Parkingeye said section 102 expressly required the court to weigh the public interest in ensuring contracts are awarded lawfully, rather than treating damages as automatically decisive (paragraphs 25-36 and 60-62).

Continuity Without Lifting

Existing parking management continued, and Parkingeye offered to match NPCG's revenue share and provide portal access. There was no interruption of NHS parking services (paragraphs 63-67).

Pre-Contract Remedy

Parkingeye preferred performance and had not pleaded damages. It also relied on difficulties valuing a counterfactual involving alleged notice, participation, criteria, evaluation and record defects (paragraphs 69-77).

5. Court's Analysis

New Test Was Substantively Different

American Cyanamid no longer applied. Adequacy of damages remained relevant but lost its former determinative role. The court had to perform one statutory balance rather than a sequential injunction test (paragraphs 23-36).

Lawful Award Favouring Suspension

Section 102(2)(a)(i) recognised a public interest in withholding award while lawfulness is disputed. Damages after award do not give that principle practical effect and can impose a double cost on public funds (paragraphs 28-36 and 60-62).

Prompt-Supply Interest Was Modest

Section 102(2)(a)(ii) was directed especially to substantial deprivation or interruption of services. Parking services continued, the procurement had already been delayed, and many claimed benefits were modest, available under the existing contract or offered during suspension (paragraphs 63-67).

Parkingeye Could in Principle Be Confined to Damages

Its interests were commercial, and not pleading damages could not make them inadequate. Incumbent data and the bid provided a basis for valuing loss, while prestige and reputation evidence did not meet the required threshold (paragraphs 68-77).

No Overriding Counterweight

NPCG supplied no evidence, other potential supplier interests were speculative, merits were not decided and a year-end trial appeared realistic. With an undertaking available, nothing outweighed the lawful-award public interest (paragraphs 78-85).

6. Decision and Outcome

Winner: The Claimant/Respondent (Parkingeye Limited) succeeded.

Result: The applications to lift the statutory suspension were refused. Parkingeye was required to give a standard undertaking in damages while the contract remained suspended (paragraphs 84-85). The Defendants/Applicants (Velindre University NHS Trust and Cardiff and Vale University Health Board) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: The NHS bodies could not conclude the contract with NPCG until final determination or further order. The claim retained the possibility of pre-contract relief under section 103 rather than being reduced to a damages action.

Suspension Maintained

The public interest in resolving disputed lawfulness before award was not outweighed (paragraph 85).

Applications Refused

Neither prompt service benefits nor supplier interests were sufficiently persuasive on the evidence (paragraphs 60-85).

Undertaking Required

Continuation was conditioned by the usual protection for loss caused by the suspension (paragraphs 84-85).

7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points

Single Statutory Balance

Section 102(2) balances public and supplier interests case by case, without a default rule or formal priority between listed factors (paragraphs 25-30 and 36).

Meaning of Lawful Award

The public interest is in awarding lawfully, not merely compensating after an unlawful award. It therefore generally supports preserving pre-contract resolution (paragraphs 31-36 and 60-62).

Avoiding Delay in Supply

The weight is greatest where defence, security or continuing public services face interruption. Incremental improvements under a replacement contract require evidence of their actual public importance (paragraphs 31 and 63-67).

Damages Still Relevant

Commercial preference for the contract and tactical omission of a damages prayer do not make compensation inadequate. The court assesses the supplier's real interest and practical ability to value loss (paragraphs 68-77).

Practice Implications

For Claimants:
Under the 2023 Act, structure evidence around the statutory balance, including why pre-contract correction serves the public as well as the bidder. Offer workable continuity and an undertaking, and present a realistic route to early trial.

For Defendants:
Do not rely only on claimant damages. Prove the degree and timing of public harm from delay, distinguishing interruption or deprivation from incremental convenience. Obtain evidence from the winning bidder if its position is relied on.

General Practice Points:
Section 102 applications require a procurement-specific evidential record. Authorities should document service continuity, operational urgency, user effects and what cannot be achieved under interim arrangements.

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.