Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust has reached a confidential settlement with teleradiology supplier Everlight Radiology, bringing to an end a High Court dispute that had stalled the implementation of a seven-year outsourcing contract worth approximately £16 million.
The trust had awarded the contract for remote radiology reporting services to Medica, one of the largest providers in the sector. Everlight, an unsuccessful bidder, subsequently launched a legal challenge against the procurement process, questioning the transparency of the evaluation and whether the scoring had been conducted in accordance with public procurement regulations. The challenge triggered an automatic suspension of the contract award, a standard legal mechanism that prevents a contracting authority from proceeding with an award while litigation is pending.
The suspension remained in place for approximately a year, during which the trust was required to maintain interim arrangements for diagnostic reporting. Teleradiology services cover the remote interpretation of X-rays, CT scans and other imaging, and are used by NHS trusts to manage reporting demand that cannot be met by in-house consultant radiologists. The delay meant the trust could not move to its preferred long-term arrangement with Medica while the legal proceedings continued.
The settlement, reached in early 2026, was agreed on confidential terms. Neither the financial value of any payment made to Everlight nor the specific grounds on which the matter was resolved have been disclosed. The trust has confirmed the case is concluded, but the costs of both the legal defence and the settlement itself are not subject to public reporting requirements in this context, leaving the full financial impact opaque.
With the dispute resolved, the trust is now able to proceed with the Medica contract and address its imaging backlog. Demand for diagnostic reporting has remained high across the NHS, and delays in implementing outsourcing arrangements have direct consequences for waiting times. The trust had been managing without its planned long-term solution for the duration of the litigation.
The case reflects a pattern that has become more common in NHS procurement as the value of outsourced contracts has grown. High-value tenders in diagnostics, pathology and other clinical support services now routinely attract multiple well-resourced private sector bidders, and legal challenges by unsuccessful suppliers have increased accordingly. Procurement regulations provide bidders with a defined route to contest awards they believe were not conducted fairly, and the automatic suspension mechanism means that even a challenge without ultimate merit can delay service delivery for months.
For NHS trusts, this represents a material operational and financial risk. The cost of defending procurement challenges, even when the original award decision is defensible, can be substantial. Legal fees, the expense of interim service arrangements and management time absorbed by litigation all carry a cost that does not appear in the original business case for a contract. Settlements reached before trial avoid the uncertainty of a judicial ruling but introduce their own costs and, where terms are confidential, limit accountability.
The Epsom and St Helier case is unlikely to be isolated. As NHS trusts continue to expand their use of independent sector providers for diagnostic and clinical support services, the commercial stakes attached to individual procurement decisions will remain high. Suppliers competing for long-term contracts have strong financial incentives to scrutinise award decisions, and the legal framework gives them effective tools to do so. Trusts will need to ensure that procurement processes are not only legally compliant but demonstrably so, given that any vulnerability in documentation or scoring methodology is likely to be tested.
