Procurement Act challenge brought out of time, High Court finds

In a summary judgment in Verity Healthcare Limited v Cambridgeshire County Council [2026] EWHC 2830 (TCC), Mrs Justice Jefford dismissed the care provider’s challenge, which included a (rejected) argument that its approach to the litigation had been influenced by “aggressive letters from CCC’s solicitors”.

The litigation centred on the county council’s ongoing procurement of a Homecare Framework worth an estimated £928m.

Verity claimed the exercise breached the Procurement Act 2023 because a condition of participation required the supplier to hold a CQC rating of “Good” or above.

The provider – which is registered with the CQC but does not hold a "good" or above rating – contended that the condition was not proportionate and was in breach of section 22 of the 2023 Act.

It sought urgent interim relief in August, calling for the court to determine its application immediately and without notice.

In response, the council issued an application to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgment on the grounds that the claim was not commenced within the statutory 30-day time limit in section 106.

Verity argued that it brought its claim in time because it did not become aware of the disputed condition until 19 July 2026. However, the council contended that Verity ought to have known about the condition when the tender notice was published on 15 July, meaning its claim, issued on 17 August, was out of time.

The care provider’s director submitted eight witness statements to the court in the course of the litigation, some of which listed different dates as to when the provider became aware of the procurement itself.

Jefford J ultimately dismissed the claim in a summary judgment.

She said: “It follows that, in my judgment, the claim was issued out of time and summary judgment should be entered for the defendant. I deal with this case on the basis of summary judgment rather than striking out of the proceedings but in terms of the limitation issue that is a distinction without a difference."

Jefford J added that, iIn correspondence and at the hearing, the council also sought to rely on Part 3.4(2)(b) and (c) as grounds to strike out the claim. "In short, the argument advanced was that the court may strike out a claim because of wrongdoing in the conduct of the claim.

“Whilst I have considerable sympathy with the matters that CCC raises as to conduct and, in particular, the changes in the evidence as to the actual date of knowledge and the ‘drip feed’ of witness statements, it is not necessary for me to decide whether these matters are sufficiently serious to amount on their own to grounds to strike out the claim."

The judge added: “To be clear, I do not accept the submission made on behalf of Verity that its conduct of the litigation and applications was driven by aggressive letters from CCC’s solicitors or was litigation by correspondence.

“This started with Verity’s claim and application for interim relief and it was for Verity to get its house in order, give full and frank disclosure when it sought a hearing without notice, and present a coherent case supported by what the evidence was rather than what it would like the evidence to be.”

Concerning the claimant’s application for interim relief, the judge said that had she reached this application, “I would not have granted the injunction”.

Stephen Kosmin of 11KBW appeared for Cambridgeshire County Council, instructed by Sharpe Pritchard LLP.

Adam Carey