Cyberfort v Lord Chancellor: TCC lifts suspension in HMCTS cyber security procurement challenge

The Technology and Construction Court has lifted the automatic suspension preventing HM Courts and Tribunals Service from entering a managed cyber security contract with Accenture, finding that the disappointed incumbent had not shown damages would be an inadequate remedy.

In Cyberfort Limited v The Lord Chancellor [2026] EWHC 1760 (TCC), Adrian Williamson KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered HMCTS's application under regulation 95 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. Cyberfort, the provider of cyber security services to HMCTS for almost six years, lost the competition to Accenture and issued proceedings in February 2026, triggering the suspension. The contract represented roughly a quarter of Cyberfort's revenue, which stood at £22.3m in 2024.

The parties agreed the familiar four-stage framework drawn from American Cyanamid and summarised in Camelot v Gambling Commission: whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether damages would be adequate for the claimant, whether they would be adequate for the defendant, and where the balance of convenience lies. A serious issue was conceded.

The judge addressed a point of principle on the second limb. Cyberfort contended that it need only show it was arguable that damages would not suffice, relying on Constable J's obiter remarks in Unipart Group v Supply Chain Coordination. Williamson KC declined to read those observations as establishing that mere arguability suffices, reasoning that almost any proposition can be argued and that without a requirement of reasonable arguability the test would be meaningless. He noted binding Court of Appeal authority in Neurim Pharmaceuticals v Generics, apparently not cited in Unipart, confirming that while stage one avoids a mini-trial, the court must do the best it can on the written evidence at the later stages rather than treating every factual dispute as a serious issue to be tried.

Cyberfort advanced three grounds for saying damages would not compensate it: loss of the HMCTS engagement as a reference contract, reputational harm, and damage to workforce retention. Each was rejected. The reference contract would remain available to demonstrate relevant experience for a considerable period, since tender questionnaires typically look to the previous three years, and any lost future work could be reflected in a damages award, courts being accustomed to weighing imponderables. The reputational case, measured against Openview v Merton, was too vague, and the judge was not persuaded that failing to win a single tender would impair Cyberfort's standing or produce significant irrecoverable loss. The staffing case fared no better. Authorities such as Practice Plus and Medequip require specific and analytical evidence of the impact on personnel, yet Cyberfort offered only broad assertions that could accompany any failed bid, despite having six months to identify particular employees at risk of departure.

That conclusion disposed of the application, but the judge addressed the remaining limbs. Adopting the reasoning of Eyre J in Medequip, he held that HMCTS, as the body responsible for the service, was best placed to judge whether the new contract's terms, including a service credit regime, an innovation obligation and enforceable social value objectives, represented improvements. The harm from continued suspension was not purely financial, and the unchallenged evidence on the benefits Accenture would deliver carried weight.

Had it been necessary, the balance of convenience would also have favoured lifting the suspension, given that a maintained suspension might have persisted until the end of 2027, the public interest in securing the service, and the position of the successful bidder. The suspension was accordingly ended with immediate effect.