Contract management

Contract management

Outsourcing is an arrangement under which an organisation contracts with a service provider to perform services that the organisation currently performs in-house or which are performed by an existing third party supplier. The outsourcing provider will instead provide those services using their own personnel and, often, facilities. Outsourcing agreements are often long term and as a result require careful management throughout the term. This might include addressing poor supplier performance through a service credit regime, dealing with disputes and implementing contract variations through a formal change control mechanism.

The outsourcing topic is divided into four subtopics, each covering a specific phase of an outsourcing transaction as follows:

•
Preliminary issues—issues for consideration in the early stages of a transaction, from initial planning through to bidder selection. See: Preliminary issues in outsourcing—overview
•
Outsourcing agreements—precedents and detailed guidance on the key issues to consider when drafting and negotiating an outsourcing agreement. See: Outsourcing agreements—overview
•
Contract management in outsourcing—issues arising after the date of signature including governance, change and disputes. See below
•
Outsourcing by type and sector—specific guidance on certain types of transaction including public sector, financial

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Commercial News

DSIT announces research on cyber security in supplier management and procurement

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has announced that it has commissioned Ipsos UK to conduct research on how UK private-sector organisations manage cybersecurity risks in their supply chains. The study aims to understand the practices, challenges, and needs of professionals responsible for procurement, supplier management, and third-party risk management. It will also examine their engagement with current DSIT and National Cyber Security Centre policy tools, which include the Global Standard on AI Cyber Security, the Software Security Code of Practice, Cyber Essentials, the Cyber Governance Code of Practice, and the Enterprise Device Principles.

Court of Appeal—application of service gateways to misuse of trade secret claims (Playtech Software Ltd v Realtime SIA)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision permitting Playtech to serve trade secrets and copyright proceedings on Latvian defendants Realtime SIA and Igors Veliks outside the jurisdiction. Playtech alleged that Veliks accessed confidential pre-release game information via the Horizon platform after leaving its Latvian affiliate and that Realtime used this information to develop competing games. However, it was held that all alleged acts occurred in Latvia and that Playtech’s claimed UK losses were merely indirect economic effects. As a result, the claim failed to pass through Gateway 21, which requires direct damage within the jurisdiction or an English-law obligation of confidence. Applying Rome II, Latvian law governed the claim. The Court of Appeal also found that England was not the appropriate forum for the related copyright claim, whose centre of gravity was likewise Latvia. Permission to serve out was therefore set aside.

Commercial weekly highlights—27 November 2025

This week's edition of Commercial weekly highlights includes: news that the Competition and Markets Authority has published its strategy for 2026–2029 outlining an enhanced consumer protection regime, news that the government has published its response to the consultation on ticket resale and announced plans to make resale above face value illegal for live events, and coverage of the key Commercial announcements in the Budget 2025.

The limits of the iniquity exception to legal professional privilege in case of entrapment (Pliego v Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd)

Dispute Resolution analysis: In this significant case concerning legal professional privilege and litigation conduct, the High Court addressed the limits of investigating alleged fraud through covert means. The claimants, pursuing a substantial stock-lending fraud claim, employed investigators who secretly recorded meetings with the defendants’ litigation solicitor under false pretences. While the court acknowledged a strong prima facie fraud case against the defendants, it held that the claimants’ entrapment tactics constituted an abuse of process. Rather than striking out the entire claim, the court adopted a balanced approach by striking out only the summary judgment application while allowing the substantive fraud claim to proceed. The case provides important guidance on the boundaries between legitimate fraud investigation and improper interference with legal professional privilege, emphasising that entrapment of an opponent’s legal representative crosses a fundamental line in civil litigation. Practical implications written by Lauren Godfrey of Gatehouse Chambers.