• At Kemp Little, we are known for our ability to serve the very particular needs of a large but diverse technology client base. Our hands-on industry know-how makes us a good fit with many of the world's biggest technology and digital media businesses, yet means we are equally relevant to companies with a technology bias, in sectors such as professional services, financial services, retail, travel and healthcare.
  • Kemp Little specialises in the technology and digital media sectors and provides a range of legal services that are crucial to fast-moving, innovative businesses.Our blend of sector awareness, technical excellence and responsiveness, means we are regularly ranked as a leading firm by directories such as Legal 500, Chambers and PLC Which Lawyer. Our practice areas cover a wide range of legal issues and advice.
  • Our Commercial Technology team has established itself as one of the strongest in the UK. We are ranked in Legal 500, Chambers & Partners and PLC Which Lawyer, with four of our partners recommended.
  • Our team provides practical and commercial advice founded on years of experience and technical know-how to technology and digital media companies that need to be alert to the rules and regulations of competition law.
  • Our Corporate Practice has a reputation for delivering sound legal advice, backed up with extensive industry experience and credentials, to get the best results from technology and digital media transactions.
  • In the fast-changing world of employment law our clients need practical, commercial and cost-effective advice. They get this from our team of employment law professionals.
  • Our team of leading IP advisors deliver cost-effective, strategic and commercial advice to ensure that your IP assets are protected and leveraged to add real value to your business.
  • Our litigation practice advises on all aspects of dispute resolution, with a particular focus on ownership, exploitation and infringement of intellectual property rights and commercial disputes in the technology sector.
  • We have an industry-leading reputation for our outsourcing expertise. Our professionals deliver credible legal advice to providers and acquirers of IT and business process outsourcing (BPO) services.
  • We work alongside companies, many with disruptive technologies, that seek funding, as well as with the venture capital firms, institutional investors and corporate ventures that want to invest in exciting business opportunities.
  • Our regulatory specialists work alongside Kemp Little’s corporate and commercial professionals to help meet their compliance obligations.
  • With a service that is commercial and responsive to our clients’ needs, you will find our tax advice easy to understand, cost-effective and geared towards maximising your tax benefits.
  • At Kemp Little, we advise clients in diverse sectors where technology is fundamental to the ongoing success of their businesses.They include companies that provide technology as a service and businesses where the use of technology is key to their business model, enabling them to bring their product or service to market.
  • We bring our commercial understanding of digital business models, our legal expertise and our reputation for delivering high quality, cost-effective services to this dynamic sector.
  • Acting for market leaders and market changers within the media industry, we combine in-depth knowledge of the structural technology that underpins content delivery and the impact of digitisation on the rights of producers and consumers.
  • We understand the risks facing this sector and work with our clients to conquer those challenges. Testimony to our success is the continued growth in our team of professionals and the clients we serve.
  • We advise at the forefront of the technological intersection between life sciences and healthcare. We advise leading technology and data analytics providers, healthcare institutions as well as manufacturers of medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnological products.
  • For clients operating in the online sector, our teams are structured to meet their commercial, financing, M&A, competition and regulatory, employment and intellectual property legal needs.
  • Our focus on technology makes us especially well positioned to give advice on the legal aspects of digital marketing. We advise on high-profile, multi-channel, cross-border cases and on highly complex campaigns.
  • The mobile and telecoms sector is fast changing and hugely dependent on technology advances. We help mobile and wireless and fixed telecoms clients to tackle the legal challenges that this evolving sector presents.
  • Whether ERP, Linux or Windows; software or infrastructure as a service in the cloud, in a virtualised environment, or as a mobile or service-oriented architecture, we have the experience to resolve legal issues across the spectrum of commercial computer platforms.
  • Our clients trust us to apply our solutions and know-how to help them make the best use of technology in structuring deals, mitigating key risks to their businesses and in achieving their commercial objectives.
  • We have extensive experience of advising customers and suppliers in the retail sector on technology development, licensing and supply projects, and in advising on all aspects of procurement and online operations.
  • Our legal professionals work alongside social media providers and users in relation to the commercial, privacy, data, advertising, intellectual property, employment and corporate issues that arise in this dynamic sector.
  • Our years of working alongside diverse software clients have given us an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of the software marketplace, market practice and alternative negotiating strategies.
  • Working with direct providers of travel services, including aggregators, facilitators and suppliers of transport and technology, our team has developed a unique specialist knowledge of the sector
  • Your life as an entrepreneur is full of daily challenges as you seek to grow your business. One of the key strengths of our firm is that we understand these challenges.
  • Kemp Little is trusted by some of the world’s leading luxury brands and some of the most innovative e-commerce retailers changing the face of the industry.
  • HR Bytes is an exclusive, comprehensive, online service that will provide you with a wide range of practical, insightful and current employment law information. HR Bytes members get priority booking for events, key insight and a range of employment materials for free.
  • FlightDeck is our portal designed especially with start-up and emerging technology businesses in mind to help you get your business up and running in the right way. We provide a free pack of all the things no-one tells you and things they don’t give away to get you started.

Suspending the award of a public contract: High Court refuses to lift suspension

In the case of Bristol Missing Link Limited v Bristol City Council [2015] EWHC 876 (TCC), the High Court has refused to lift the suspension of the award of a contract by Bristol City Council (“Council”) until a procurement dispute with an unsuccessful bidder has been resolved.

Legal context

Following the decision by a qualifying public body to award a contract to a supplier, the Public Contract Regulations 2006 impose a standstill period during which the contract cannot be concluded. This standstill period is either 10 or 15 calendar days (depending on means of communication). If a challenge is raised during this standstill period (usually by an unsuccessful bidder for the same contract), the public body is automatically barred from entering into the relevant contract until proceedings are dealt with in Court. The public body can however apply to the Court for an order to lift the automatic suspension in limited circumstances.

It should be noted that while the tender in the present case was governed by the Public Contract Regulations 2006, all new tender processes entered into on or after 26 February 2015 will be governed by the new Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The new regulations have generally not changed the rules regarding the standstill period or bidders’ remedies for breaches of the regulations.

The case

Bristol City Council tendered a contract for domestic violence and abuse support services in July 2014.  The incumbent supplier (Bristol Missing Link Limited or BML) submitted a bid for the contract along with two other bidders. In January 2015, BML was informed by the Council that its bid had been unsuccessful.

BML and the Council entered into detailed correspondence regarding the failed bid (during which the Council refused to provide details regarding the successful bidder’s tender). BML commenced legal proceedings in February 2015, and the Council’s procurement was automatically suspended. BML claimed that:

  1. its score was moderated downwards following the allocation of individual scores by the individual evaluators and the reason for this had not been properly explained

  2. the individual scores that were awarded to its tender were unfairly low, and

  3. there were issues with how the successful bidder’s bid had been evaluated.

The Council made an application to the High Court to have the automatic suspension lifted.

The judgment

The High Court ruled that the suspension should remain in force until the case had gone to an expedited trial. The Judge gave the following reasons (amongst others) for his judgment:

  • a delay in awarding the contract would not be detrimental to service users
  • there was no issue with the services being provided by BML and these services were generally comparable to the new services to be provided 
  • if the suspension was lifted, BML’s only remedy would be damages and these would be difficult for BML to quantify as it was a non-profit organisation (damages usually relate to “lost profits”)
  • lifting the suspension would have “catastrophic consequences” for BML as the loss of this contract would have significant repercussions for its other services
  • the advantage of having the suspension in place would be significant to BML while its disadvantages would be negligible to the Council
  • the Council had not shown BML’s claims were hopeless. There were clear issues arising out of the scoring of the bid which were difficult to settle without disclosure of relevant documents taking place
  • the Council’s approach was potentially unfair as it had referred to documents and events in its application to lift the automatic suspension which it had not made available to BML during the disclosure process.


This judgment highlights how important the facts of a particular case are when the Court is asked to determine whether a contract suspension should be lifted. The relatively low impact to the service users if the award of the contract was delayed, and the fact that damages would be an inadequate remedy for BML were significant factors for the Court in reaching its decision.

Suppliers should carefully consider the evaluation criteria provided by public bodies when preparing their bids. In the event that a Supplier believes its bid has been underscored or otherwise wrongly evaluated, the Supplier should consider whether it is worth raising questions during the standstill period regarding the evaluation of its bid by the public body.

It is also best practice for public bodies to maintain accurate and appropriately detailed notes regarding their evaluation and moderation processes. These notes will help a public body to assist suppliers in understanding the decision that has been taken in relation to their bid.

For more information please contact Nicola Fulford or Rupam Davé.