新时代的自动悬架：Parkingeye诉Velindre大学NHS信托和Anor案——高等法院首次根据2023年《采购法》解释新的自动悬架测试

Parkingeye v. Velindre University NHS Trust and Anor– High Court interpretsthe new automatic suspension test under the Procurement Act 2023 for the May 2026 Parkingeye’s underlying claim challenges the lawfulness ofthe procurement and award decision, although those issueswere not determined at this stage. The allegations includeerrors in the tender and award notices, the stated value andclassification of the contract, and whether the contract shouldhave been treated as a concession contract. Parkingeye Overview The High Court handed down the first judgmenton the test for lifting an automatic suspensionunder the Procurement Act 2023. The courtrefused to lift the suspension and confirmedthat Section 102 of the Procurement Act 2023introduces a substantively different test from The position under the Public Contracts Under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, applications tolift an automatic suspension were considered by referenceto theAmerican Cyanamidtest.2In practice, that testfocused heavily on whether damages would be an adequateremedy for the claimant if the suspension were lifted and Background Parkingeye was the incumbent provider of car parkmanagement services at NHS sites operated by Cardiffand Vale University Health Board. Velindre University NHSTrust provided procurement services for the tender. The As a result, contracting authorities were often able to liftautomatic suspensions that prohibited them from concludingcontracts with the successful bidder. The practical effect was That approach often gave contracting authorities significanttactical leverage. If the suspension was lifted, the authoritycould enter into the contract with the successful bidder. Thechallenger’s remedy would then often be limited to damages,rather than preserving any realistic prospect of stopping The contracting authority decided to award the contractto National Parking Control Group Ltd (NPCG). Parkingeyeissued proceedings during the standstill period, whichtriggered the automatic suspension under Section 101 of the The new position under the Procurement Although the new contract offered benefits, including an on-site helpdesk, improved permit management, revenue sharingand an enhanced appeals process, the court treated those The Procurement Act 2023 has introduced a new statutorytest. Section 102 of the Procurement Act 2023 requires thecourt to consider the public interest, suppliers’ interests and That conclusion was reinforced by Parkingeye’s offer tomatch certain benefits during the suspension period, and bythe lack of evidence that extending the existing arrangements As part of the assessment of suppliers’ interests, the courtmust consider whether damages would be an adequateremedy for the claimant. TheParkingeyejudgment confirmsthat this remains relevant, but it is now only one aspect of the Key takeaways Contracting authorities will likely need to think aboutsuspension risk much earlier in the procurement life cycle.For high-value procurements, the public interest case forproceeding with award may need to be built before the The court held that that Section 102 test is substantivelydifferent from theAmerican Cyanamidapproach. The judgerejected the argument that the public interest in lawfulprocurement is adequately protected by damages after the “I read it as recognising a public interest that, where thelawfulness of an award of a contract is disputed, the This decision makes the new eight-working-day standstillperiod more commercially significant. Unsuccessful biddersmay use it not only to assess whether there is a legal claim,but also to assess whether the automatic suspension canrealistically be maintained. This puts greater pressure Although the court held there was no presumption thatsuspensions must always remain in place, and lifting of thesuspension remains fact-specific, the judgment indicates The judgment may also strengthen the position of incumbentsuppliers. Where the incumbent can continue delivering(and agrees to continue delivering) the service, an authoritymay find it harder to show that immediate award to a newsupplier is required in the public interest. Interim offers by the In interpreting Section 102 of the Procurement Act 2023,the court noted that external aids to interpretation, such asgovernment white papers and reports, may assist and mayprovide context.6The same applies to theCabinet Office At the same time, successful bidders may become moreactive participants in suspension disputes. If delay affectsmobilisation, staffing, subcontracting, pricing or financingassumptions, they may be more likely to provide evidence of TheParkingeyejudgment The court accepted that damages would, in principle, be anadequate remedy for Parkingeye and rejected Parkingeye’s Overall, the automatic suspension may become a moremeaningful commercial lever in procurement challenges.Under the previous regime, the application to lift was oftenthe pivotal point in a procurement challenge. Onc