Verity v Cambridgeshire: a reminder from the High Court on time limits to bring procurement challenges

Background

We now have another High Court decision considering the Procurement Act 2023 (PA23), this time on the topic of limitation periods and when 'knowledge' begins to run. Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) launched a procurement process to establish a Framework to select providers of regulated homecare services to adults.  The Framework appeared to be a significant opportunity, with a 10-year term and an estimated value of £928 million.

The first stage of the procurement required bidders to complete a Procurement Specific Questionnaire acting as a compliance gateway. This included a requirement that providers hold a current CQC rating of Good or above.  If bidders were unable to meet this, their application would be excluded. Verity Healthcare Limited (Verity) is a CQC-registered provider but did not hold a Good or above rating. It challenged the CQC rating condition as disproportionate and in breach of section 22 of the PA23. CCC responded to this challenge by making an application to strike out the claim/enter summary judgment, as the claim form was filed out of time.

The limitation problem

Under section 106(2) of the PA23, a supplier must commence proceedings within 30 days beginning with the day on which it first knew, or ought to have known, about the circumstances giving rise to the claim.  The Tender Notice was published on 15 July 2026 on Find a Tender.  Verity issued its claim on 17 August 2026, and initially stated it had first become aware of the procurement and the challenged condition (i.e. the requirement to have a CQC rating of 'Good' or above) on 19 July 2026.

The problem was that according to CCC's audit log, Verity had first accessed the e-procurement portal at 10.50pm on 18 July 2026 and registered an expression of interest at 10.51pm.  This evidence essentially unravelled Verity's case.  Verity's director submitted several versions of events in an attempt to persuade the Court that he had not actually read the above-mentioned requirement for a CQC rating of at least "Good", until 19 July 2026 (and therefore Verity's position was that the claim form had been filed within the 30-day limitation period).  Part of the complication also appeared to be that Verity was not tracking the Find a Tender service for opportunities, and was instead reliant on an alternative tender notification service and on tracking a previous e-procurement portal used by CCC.

The Court found that the claimant's evidence had sought to obfuscate the issue, offered inconsistent or incomplete versions of events, and even at the conclusion of proceedings, the claimant had provided no clear description of what Verity's director had actually read when he logged into the e-portal.

The Court's decision

Mrs Justice Jefford granted summary judgment for CCC on two independent grounds:

• Actual knowledge: On the evidence, the Court was clear that Verity had actual knowledge of the procurement at latest on 18 July (i.e. the date that the procurement had been drawn to the attention of Verity's director/he had expressed interest).  The claim, issued on 17 August, was therefore one day out of time.
• Constructive knowledge: Even had actual knowledge not been established, the Court found Verity ought to have known about the procurement from the date the Tender Notice was published on Find a Tender (15 July 2026). It is not incumbent on a commissioning body to inform suppliers of the portal it intends to use, even if they are incumbent providers. Obtaining notifications or alerts from Find a Tender or Google is what suppliers should, and routinely do.  Verity's apparent reliance on 'Tenders UK' (a separate tender alert service used by Verity) which notified opportunities at the end of a given week, meant Verity could be taken to know it was receiving information potentially days after a Tender Notice had been published on Find a Tender.  

Was there a good reason to grant an extension of time to issue the claim?

The Court said no. Verity had offered no reason why the claim was not or could not have been issued within the 30-day period. The claim raised the same matters as a letter which Verity sent to CCC on 21 July, and therefore a claim form could have easily have been prepared and issued at any time after that date.

The Court did not accept that waiting for CCC's response to Verity's letter of 21 July offered a 'good reason'.  Again, the Court found that the claim could have been issued immediately on receipt of CCC's response on 11 August, and would still have been in time. Instead, it was issued six days later despite Verity's clear awareness of the potential limitation issue.

Request for interim relief

Verity had submitted an application notice to seek interim relief, which essentially sought an order from the Court that Verity should not have been excluded/that the procurement be suspended.  This was refused, acknowledging that as summary judgment had been granted, the issue of interim relief could not arise: "the court will not grant interim relief in support of a claim that is doomed to failure".  Even if summary judgment was not granted, the Court would not have imposed an injunction as damages would have been an adequate remedy for Verity.

Key takeaways

1. (For challengers) act swiftly: the 30-day clock starts ticking from the date of constructive knowledge, not actual discovery.  The limitation period under the PA23 is unforgiving. This case is a stark reminder that the clock runs from the date a notice is published – not from the date a supplier happens to read it. Waiting for a contracting authority's response to an informal challenge before issuing proceedings is a high-risk strategy. Potential claimants should seek legal advice at the very earliest opportunity after identifying a possible breach to ensure this very short limitation period is not extinguished.
2. (For challengers) track opportunities via Find a Tender: do not assume a contracting authority's own e-portal will notify you of new opportunities – Find a Tender is the authoritative source.
3. (For contracting authorities) early transparency about requirements can be a powerful tool when defending a challenge: CCC's extensive pre-market engagement (including online information workshops, multiple Preliminary Engagement Notices on Find a Tender, in-person sessions with providers in November 2025 at which the Good rating requirement was discussed, a Planned Procurement Notice, and a Pipeline Notice) made reference to the CQC rating requirement well before the formal Tender Notice was published. This track record appeared persuasive to the Court's finding that a reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderer would have been alive to that condition. Any potential tenderer who was aware of the pre-market engagement would have been aware that the CQC rating was a condition to be looked out for in the tender documents, particularly if it would exclude that tenderer from participation. This case is a reminder that early transparency, and careful record-keeping of all pre-market engagement, can significantly strengthen a contracting authority's position when a limitation defence is later required.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at November 2026. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.