Judge rules damages are an adequate remedy for Cyberfort in procurement dispute
The High Court has lifted the automatic suspension preventing HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) from entering into a new managed cyber security contract following a procurement challenge brought by incumbent supplier Cyberfort Limited.
In Cyberfort Limited v The Lord Chancellor on behalf of HM Courts and Tribunals Service [2026] EWHC 1760 (TCC), Deputy High Court Judge Adrian Williamson KC concluded that Cyberfort had not demonstrated that damages would be an inadequate remedy if it ultimately succeeded at trial. As a result, the court granted HMCTS’s application to lift the suspension imposed under regulation 95 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.
The dispute arose after HMCTS selected another bidder, Accenture, for a new contract covering managed cyber security services across the courts and tribunals service. Cyberfort, which has provided cyber security services to HMCTS since 2020, issued proceedings challenging the procurement process. The claim automatically prevented HMCTS from entering into the new contract pending the court’s decision.
The judgment applied the established principles governing applications to lift automatic suspensions in procurement disputes, including the American Cyanamid test. The parties agreed there was a serious issue to be tried, leaving the court to consider whether damages would adequately compensate either party and where the balance of convenience lay.
The court rejected Cyberfort’s arguments that losing the contract would cause irreparable harm to its future tendering prospects, reputation and workforce. Judge Williamson found that the company would continue to be able to rely on its previous HMCTS work as relevant experience when bidding for future contracts. He also held that any future financial losses could, if established, be reflected in an award of damages.
The judge further found that Cyberfort’s evidence on reputational damage and staff retention consisted largely of broad assertions rather than specific or analytical evidence demonstrating losses that could not be compensated financially.
For solicitors advising clients on procurement challenges, the judgment reinforces that general claims about reputational harm, reduced competitiveness or employee departures are unlikely to prevent an automatic suspension from being lifted. A claimant seeking to maintain a suspension must provide detailed evidence showing why damages would not provide an adequate remedy, rather than relying on speculative commercial consequences.
Turning to HMCTS, the court accepted that damages would not adequately compensate the public authority if the suspension remained in place. The judgment recognised HMCTS’s responsibility for operating critical justice infrastructure and accepted evidence that the new contract contained improvements, including revised service levels, contractual innovation obligations and social value objectives.
Judge Williamson also considered the public interest in allowing HMCTS to obtain the cyber security capability it had determined best met the needs of the justice system. He concluded that, if necessary, the balance of convenience also favoured lifting the suspension, noting that maintaining it could delay implementation of the new contract until the end of 2027 while proceedings continued. The judgment was handed down on 13 July 2026 in the Technology and Construction Court.