Background
The Home Office ran a procurement for the Strategic Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance Special Missions Aircraft Management Service, which supplies aerial surveillance information concerning small-boat crossings from mainland Europe to the United Kingdom. PAL Aerospace, the incumbent provider, challenged the decision to award the new contract to DEA Aviation.
PAL issued proceedings on 17 July 2026. Under regulation 95 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, that challenge automatically prevented the Home Office from entering into the contract. PAL alleged that DEA had been allowed to submit a non-compliant tender; the dispute was said to turn on the interpretation of a limited number of tender requirements. The Home Office sought to lift the suspension, while PAL sought an expedited trial.
The Court’s Holding
Jonathan Acton Davis KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, refused to lift the automatic suspension and ordered an expedited trial, with directions already made for trial to begin on 7 December 2026.
There was a serious issue to be tried by agreement. The judge held that PAL had shown a real risk that damages would not be an adequate remedy if the suspension were lifted, accepting its evidence about the effect of losing the procurement. By contrast, the Home Office had not produced sufficient evidence that damages would be inadequate for it, particularly given the December trial. DEA’s concerns about recruitment and delay could broadly be addressed through a speedy resolution.
The balance of convenience favoured preserving the suspension pending trial. That course reduced the risk that the public purse would pay both the successful provider and damages, while avoiding confining PAL to a damages remedy the court had found potentially inadequate.
Key Takeaways
- An automatic suspension can remain in force where the claimant shows a real risk that damages will not adequately compensate it.
- General assertions of operational and public-value harm may be insufficient, especially where an expedited trial can promptly resolve the procurement dispute.
- The successful bidder’s commercial concerns may be accommodated by expedition rather than lifting the suspension.
Why It Matters
The decision shows that even a procurement involving important public services will not automatically justify lifting a regulation 95 suspension. The court will require evidence of the practical harm caused by maintaining it and will assess whether a short, expedited trial is a less unjust alternative.
For procurement challengers and authorities alike, the case underscores the importance of focused evidence on the adequacy of damages and of workable proposals for expedited determination.