Cybersecurity: HMCTS best placed to decide provider
The High Court has lifted a suspension preventing HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) from signing a new cybersecurity contract with Accenture, triggered by a procurement challenge from existing provider.
Adrian Williamson KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, rejected Cyberfort’s argument [1] that losing the contract would damage its reputation, saying that in “the normal rough and tumble of commercial life, some tenders are accepted and some are not”.
Cyberfort has provided cyber-security services to HMCTS for almost six years since September 2020, with the latest contract running from 2024. It generated 25% of the company’s revenues, the court heard.
Three companies submitted bids for the next contract and in January 2026 HMCTS decided to award it to Accenture.
Cyberfort issued its claim challenging the decision in February, triggering regulation 95 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which prevented HMCTS from entering into a new contract.
HMCTS applied to lift the suspension. The parties agreed that there was a serious issue to be tried and so the question was whether damages would be an adequate remedy for Cyberfort if the suspension was lifted and it won at trial, or HMCTS if the suspension stayed in place and it won at trial.
Judge Williamson dismissed Cyberfort’s arguments that lifting it would cause future harm to its tendering capability, damage its reputation and impact its workforce, particularly in terms of retention and capability.
He rejected the suggestion that Cyberfort would no longer be able to use its HMCTS contract to win new work.
“It is apparent from the materials exhibited by Cyberfort that they will still be able to use the HMCTS contract to show its experience in order to attempt to gain new contracts.”
The judge said typical questionnaires to tenderers sought evidence of relevant experience within the last three years, which meant that “the HMCTS contract (as a reference contract) is available to Cyberfort for a considerable future period”.
Cyberfort argued that the court “could not possibly make an award of damages which reflected the loss of future tenders, because this was so uncertain”.
Judge Williamson said: “I think that this is overly pessimistic. If the court were persuaded that the loss of this reference contract had caused Cyberfort to lose work, then a suitable award could be made.”
The mere failure to win the contract was not likely to impair Cyberfort’s reputation, he went on.
“But even were that the case, Cyberfort have not begun to show that this will ‘lead to financial losses that would be significant’. The claimed prejudice is entirely speculative.”
The authorities showed that loss of specialist staff could, on the right set of facts, show that damages were not an adequate remedy for a claimant, the judge said.
However, the impact on staff “must be demonstrated specifically and analytically”, and there was “no such specific or analytical evidence here, but merely very broad brush assertions which could be put forward in the case of any failed tender”.
HMCTS was “a reputable public body performing difficult and important tasks”. Increasing digitisation of the court system rendered it “vulnerable to cyber attack, with potentially catastrophic consequences” for the administration of justice.
It was “best placed to judge whether the changes which have been introduced into the new contract, at their behest, are likely to be an improvement or not”.
It was for HMCTS to “decide the way in which they want the services delivered”. If the suspension was not lifted, it would not be able to provide services “in the form and on the terms it wishes” – a loss which “cannot adequately be compensated in damages”.
Judge Williamson said that, if relevant, he would have said that “the balance of convenience” favoured lifting the suspension, partly because it would have to continue until the end of next year, “leaving all three parties (Cyberfort, HMCTS and Accenture) in contractual limbo for a very long time”.
He acceded to HMCTS’s application and the suspension was ended with immediate effect.