Unipart Group Limited & Anor v Supply Chain Coordination Limited

Unipart Group Limited & Anor v Supply Chain Coordination Limited

The automatic suspension is lifted because the claimants failed to establish to a reasonable degree of confidence that damages would be inadequate, particularly DHL; Unipart, though the incumbent and smaller, only just crossed the threshold but delay in seeking relief weighed heavily against it. The balance of convenience and public interest in urgent NHS infrastructure modernisation decisively favoured SCCL. The risk of irreparable harm or loss of reputation was not substantiated by evidence, and complexity of loss calculation did not render damages inadequate.

Parties
Claimant: Unipart Group Limited; Claimant: DHL Supply Chain Limited; Defendant: Supply Chain Coordination Limited; Interested Party: GXO Logistics UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Procurement Challenge / Application to Lift Automatic Suspension Under Regulation 96(1) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015
Outcome
Application to lift automatic suspension granted
Legal Topics
Automatic Suspension, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience, Conflicts of Interest, Contract Award Challenge, Regulation 24 and 41 PCR, Loss of Chance, Francovich Damages
Public Procurement Contract Law Automatic Suspension Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience Conflicts of Interest Contract Award Challenge Regulation 24 and 41 PCR +2 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 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unipart Group Limited

Claimant

DHL Supply Chain Limited

Claimant

Supply Chain Coordination Limited

Defendant

GXO Logistics UK Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Procurement Challenge / Application to Lift Automatic Suspension Under Regulation 96(1) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the automatic suspension on contract award should be lifted under regulation 96(1) of the PCR
  2. 2 Adequacy of damages for claimants if suspension is lifted
  3. 3 Adequacy of damages for defendant if suspension remains

Ratio Decidendi

The automatic suspension is lifted because the claimants failed to establish to a reasonable degree of confidence that damages would be inadequate, particularly DHL; Unipart, though the incumbent and smaller, only just crossed the threshold but delay in seeking relief weighed heavily against it. The balance of convenience and public interest in urgent NHS infrastructure modernisation decisively favoured SCCL. The risk of irreparable harm or loss of reputation was not substantiated by evidence, and complexity of loss calculation did not render damages inadequate.

Court Disposition

Application to lift automatic suspension granted

Orders

  • Automatic suspension on contract award is lifted
  • Application for preliminary issue (conflict of interest) is dismissed