Millbrook Healthcare Ltd v Devon County Council [2025] EWHC 744 (TCC) (28 March 2025)

Millbrook Healthcare Ltd v Devon County Council [2025] EWHC 744 (TCC) (28 March 2025)

Damages are an adequate remedy for the claimant; the risk of no damages due to the 'sufficiently serious breach' requirement does not justify maintaining the suspension. The balance of convenience strongly favours lifting the suspension to allow the defendant to implement the new contract and deliver public benefits. The application for expedition is refused as there is no compelling urgency and the delay would be detrimental to public services.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 744 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Millbrook Healthcare Limited; Defendant: Devon County Council; Interested Party: Nottingham Rehab Limited (T/A NRS Healthcare)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Procurement Challenge Under Public Contracts Regulations 2015 / Interlocutory Applications: Application to Lift Automatic Suspension (atl) and Application for Expedition
Outcome
Application to lift automatic suspension granted; application for expedition refused.
Legal Topics
Automatic Suspension Under PCR 2015, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience, Sufficiently Serious Breach (francovich Damages), Expedition of Trial, Remedies in Procurement Disputes
Public Procurement Contract Law Administrative Law Automatic Suspension Under PCR 2015 Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience Sufficiently Serious Breach (francovich Damages) Expedition of Trial +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Millbrook Healthcare Limited

Claimant

Devon County Council

Defendant

Nottingham Rehab Limited (T/A NRS Healthcare)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Procurement Challenge Under Public Contracts Regulations 2015 / Interlocutory Applications: Application to Lift Automatic Suspension (atl) and Application for Expedition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the automatic suspension on contract award should be lifted under Regulation 96(1) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant if the suspension is lifted
  3. 3 Whether the risk of no damages due to 'sufficiently serious breach' should affect the adequacy of damages analysis

Ratio Decidendi

Damages are an adequate remedy for the claimant; the risk of no damages due to the 'sufficiently serious breach' requirement does not justify maintaining the suspension. The balance of convenience strongly favours lifting the suspension to allow the defendant to implement the new contract and deliver public benefits. The application for expedition is refused as there is no compelling urgency and the delay would be detrimental to public services.

Court Disposition

Application to lift automatic suspension granted; application for expedition refused.

Orders

  • The automatic suspension restraining the defendant from entering into the contract with NRS is lifted.
  • The application for an expedited trial is dismissed.