Procurement Act 2023

As of 24 February 2025, the main provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) are in force. Procurements begun on or after this date must be carried out under PA 2023 (where applicable), whereas those begun under the previous legislation (the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102, the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, SI 2016/274, the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, SI 2016/273, and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011, SI 2011/1848) must continue to be procured and managed under that legislation. See Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023.

This practical guidance relates to the Procurement Act 2023

This subtopic contains a range of resources focussing on some of the key considerations for contracting authorities conducting a public procurement exercise under PA 2023.

For practical guidance on public procurement under the previous legislation, see Practice Notes:

•
Introduction to public contracts procurement
•
Introduction to concession contracts procurement
•
Introduction to utilities contracts procurement

For background reading on the key differences between PA 2023 and the previous regime, see Checklist: Procurement Act 2023—key changes.

Public

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 Local Government News

Local Government weekly highlights—2 October 2025

This week’s edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes: case analysis of Fatolahzadeh v LB of Barnet, where the local authority successfully defended a Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996) appeal on suitability of accommodation offered in performance of the prevention duty; R (Begum) v LB Tower Hamlets, in which the court confirmed that the council homeless database did not indirectly discriminate against women; Mole Valley DC v Secretary of State & Meloney regarding statutory interpretation of the updated NPPF and NPPTS; Enlli Angharad Williams v Gwynedd, clarifying the limits of Article 4 directions over use class changes in Wales. Case reports include R (Nabeel-Dib Hammad) v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea in which the court found a breach of duty under HA 1996 to house the homeless claimant; Page v Information Commissioner, in which the Tribunal upheld prior findings that the appellant was not entitled to copies of lesson materials under Freedom of Information Act 2000 when these had already been delivered; R (CKT and DGT) v Twyford Church of England Academies Trust on the intersection of faith-based admissions and racial equality duties; Cardiff Council v X, in which the UT found the ETW erroneously applied an outdated legal framework and Wigan Council v PAG Ltd; Trafford Council v PAG Ltd in which the High Court rejected the NNDR avoidance scheme and confirmed liability remained with property owner. It also includes expert analysis of the government intention to introduce a new quality assurance framework for unregistered alternative provision. It also includes further updates on Social housing, Education, Planning, Local government finance, Public procurement, Governance, Healthcare, Social Care, Licensing and Environmental law and climate change.

Family Presiding Judge for London issues revised Public Law Practice Note

In a letter dated 30 September 2025, the Family Presiding Judge for London, Mr Justice MacDonald, has issued a revised Public Law Practice Note for London to secure rigorous adherence to the Public Law Outline (PLO). The revisions made to the Practice Note centre on reiterating the test of necessity for both the instruction of expert evidence and the attendance of experts for cross examination at any final hearing. A similar revision is made in respect of controlling the use of intermediaries. Minor changes have also been made with respect to the consequences of default of case management directions. The Practice Note forms part of the wider London Family Justice Strategy. The key objectives of that strategy are to reduce delay in public law proceedings and to deal with the backlog of private law cases, with a view to preparing London for Pathfinder. The Practice Note is designed to maintain rigour in the case management of public law cases. In addition, a programme has been introduced to identify and seek to resolve long running private law cases that are, or can be made, ready for final hearing. The Ministry of Justice has provided funding for additional sitting days for private law and additional courts are sitting at Wandsworth deal with those cases. A pilot project is examining the use of Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) case progression officers.

DHSC mandates online GP appointment systems during core hours

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has announced that all general practitioner (GP) practices in England must now keep online consultation tools available from 8 am to 6:30 pm, Monday to Friday, effective from 1 October 2025. This measure aims to eliminate the morning rush for appointments by allowing patients to submit requests digitally throughout the day, thereby easing pressure on phone lines and improving access. Backed by a £1.1bn investment and the recruitment of over 2,000 GPs, the reform is part of a broader strategy to modernise general practice and improve patient experience. NHS England has provided implementation support, and practices must now also publish a patient charter outlining service expectations. Early adopters have reported reduced waiting times and improved satisfaction, with digital submissions nearly doubling year-on-year, reflecting growing public demand for flexible access to care.

Planning application determination/material consideration/rights to light and overshadowing (R (Knights) v SNDC 2025)

Planning analysis: In Knights v SNDC, the High Court quashed the grant of planning permission for a residential dwelling on the basis that South Norfolk District Council (‘the Council’) had failed to take into account an expert report relating to the impacts on rights of light and overshadowing. This amounted to a failure to take into account a material consideration which is required under section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). This case is recommended reading for those involved in drafting officer’s reports and determining applications and will also be of interest to those promoting, supporting and objecting to schemes. Written by Sarah Sutherland, practice development lawyer at Burges Salmon LLP.

View Local Government by content type :

News