Procurement in a Nutshell: Apasen Limited v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2026] EWHC 2239 (TCC)

The contracts relate to London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the “Council) sourcing domiciliary care services. Apasen, the claimant, are a provider in that sector. The application to strike out was ultimately unsuccessful.

Case facts

Original procurement

• In July 2023, the Council launched the original procurement comprising domiciliary care services which was divided into 4 geographical lots.
• The Claimant submitted a tender in respect of Area 2 and Area 3.
• During the procurement, whistleblowing allegations were made against Apasen, leading the Council to commission PwC to carry out an investigative audit.
• Apasen was unsuccessful for Area 2 and was conditionally successful to Area 3 contingent on the audit outcome.
• Apasen challenged the decision and commenced proceedings under the PCR 2015
• The Council then abandoned the original procurement.

Interim contracts

• In March 2025, the Council published a Transparency notice setting out its intention to make 7 interim direct awards under the Procurement Act 2023, relying on the “extreme and unavoidable” urgency justification. Two of the interim contracts were awarded to Apasen.
• On the same day, they also published a Contract Award Notice (CAN). The CAN made no mention of the direct award justification relied upon by the Council.
• In June 2025, the Council reversed its position and decided not to award any interim contracts to Apasen. They said this decision was based on the PwC audit findings.
• Apasen subsequently brought proceedings under the PA 2023 claiming, amongst other things, that the CAN was invalid for not identifying the direct award justification, and that the justification of urgency was not available in any event.
• The Council then applied to strike out those elements of the claim that were seeking the remedy of ‘set aside’, arguing that the set aside conditions in section 105 of the Procurement Act were not satisfied and were not established in the Particulars of Claim.

Stay up to date with:

• Trending Topics
• Latest Insights
• Upcoming Events
• Company Updates

Follow us on LinkedIn

Take Me There

Held

The court refused to strike out the claim and commented that the question of what circumstances would justify holding that a contract award notice is not accurate is not decided as yet by the courts. The court agreed that if the justification of urgency was not well-founded on the facts, then it was arguable that any notice asserting that justification would not be accurate.

Moving forward

While the substantive claims are yet to be decided, this case serves as a reminder for authorities that direct award justifications will be carefully scrutinised and considered by potential challengers and therefore highlights the importance of ensuring notices cover everything required.

For further information please contact Tim Care or Melanie Pears in our Public Sector team.