Court rejects bid to halt DVLA’s 2026 number plate rollout
4th March 2026
The High Court has thrown out two interlocutory applications aimed at stopping the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) from proceeding with the embossment and distribution of vehicle number plates for 2026.
The applications were filed by 26 vehicle embossment firms together with their parent association, who are challenging the award of a new contract by the authority.
The motions, submitted on December 22, 2025, and January 5, 2026, sought temporary relief pending the determination of the substantive case.
The first application requested an injunction to bar the DVLA and the newly contracted company from producing or distributing number plates until the main suit is resolved.
The second asked the court to restrain the defendants from embossing or distributing plates in any format — including digitalised versions — until final judgment.
However, the presiding judge dismissed both applications, ruling that they lacked merit.
Dispute Over Contract Award
In the substantive suit, the plaintiffs are asking the court to nullify the 2026 embossment contract.
They argue that the DVLA’s previous approval of 27 companies to undertake embossment, coupled with long-standing industry practice, created a binding arrangement that has never been formally terminated.
They further claim the authority owes their members outstanding payments for pre-financed embossment works carried out in the past.
Although the DVLA has announced plans to roll out digitalised number plates in January 2026, the plaintiffs insist their members were sidelined in the process.
They argue that the embossment cycle should have commenced in October 2025 with the allocation of blank plates — something they say did not happen despite public assurances.
According to the group, on October 27, 2025, the DVLA Chief Executive informed them that the manufacturing and embossment contract had been awarded to Dr Nyarko Esumadu Appiah of Original Manufacturing and Embossment (Daasebre), a decision later affirmed by the Deputy Chief Executive.
The plaintiffs describe the move as unfair and an abuse of administrative discretion.
They contend that for nearly 30 years, manufacturing and embossment contracts were awarded separately to avoid conflicts of interest.
Granting both roles to a single entity while excluding 46 companies and sole proprietors, they argue, is discriminatory.
They also allege violations of the Public Procurement Act, 2003, claiming the contract was neither publicly advertised nor approved for sole-sourcing by the Public Procurement Authority.
While expressing support for the digitalisation initiative, the plaintiffs are proposing a six-month suspension of its implementation to allow broader consultation and proper planning.
They warn that if the court does not intervene, more than 3,000 workers employed by their member companies could face significant financial hardship.