The High Court has given the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) the green light to continue embossing and distributing 2026 vehicle number plates after dismissing two applications seeking to halt the process.
The interlocutory injunctions, filed in December 2025 and January 2026 by 26 vehicle embossment companies and their parent association, sought to restrain the DVLA and a newly contracted firm from proceeding with the production and distribution of number plates pending the final determination of a substantive suit.
However, the court dismissed both applications on Tuesday, describing them as lacking merit.
The plaintiffs are challenging the DVLA’s decision to award a manufacturing and embossment contract to Dr. Nyarko Esumadu Appiah of Original Manufacturing and Embossment (Daasebre), arguing that the move breaches an existing arrangement under which 27 of their members had been approved to emboss number plates.
They contend that the approval, coupled with years of engagement and pre-financing of plate production, created a binding and enforceable contract that has not been formally withdrawn. The companies also claim that the authority owes them arrears and has unfairly sidelined them ahead of the planned rollout of digitalised number plates in 2026.
In their court filings, the plaintiffs allege that awarding both manufacturing and embossment responsibilities to a single entity departs from a 30-year practice of separating the contracts to prevent conflicts of interest. They further argue that the DVLA failed to advertise the contract or obtain sole-sourcing approval from the Public Procurement Authority, contrary to procurement laws.
The companies have also proposed a six-month suspension of the digital plate rollout to allow for stakeholder engagement, planning, and training, insisting that ongoing consultations were disrupted by management changes in 2024.
Despite these claims, the court’s refusal to grant the injunction means the DVLA can proceed with its 2026 number plate programme while the substantive case remains before the court.
The plaintiffs maintain that without judicial intervention, their members — who collectively employ over 3,000 workers — risk financial losses and potential job cuts. The main suit challenging the legality of the contract award is still pending before the court.
