Pre-procurement considerations

This subtopic contains a range of resources focussing on some of the key considerations for contracting authorities before starting a public procurement exercise, with particular focus on public procurement procedures under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102.

STOP PRESS: 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, whereas those begun under the previous legislation (the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, the Concession Regulations 2016, and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011) must continue to be procured and managed under that legislation. See Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023.

PCR 2015 as assimilated law

PCR 2015 are EU-derived domestic legislation and therefore assimilated law under sections 2 and 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

For practical guidance on the status and interpretation of assimilated law, see Practice Note: Assimilated law.

Public procurement law

The domestic public procurement regime rests on a series

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 Public Law News

Bar council calls for 'urgent' probe into HMCTS IT bugs

Law360, London: The Bar Council called on 8 August 2025 for an investigation into reports that IT bugs in case management software caused information and evidence used in court cases to be hidden, overwritten or disappear, potentially affecting the outcome of litigation.

Public Law weekly highlights—14 August 2025

This week’s edition of Public Law weekly highlights includes a hand-picked summary of news analysis, legal updates and case law from the world of public law. Key updates this week include the Supreme Court’s decision in the first court challenge to sanctions imposed under the UK’s Russia sanctions regime, details of the expedited ratification of the UK-France migration Treaty, plus analysis on AI in government and public policy. These highlights also include the latest updates on equality and human rights, judicial review, information law, international law and other public law news.

Supreme Court rules on first Russia sanctions challenge (Shvidler v Foreign Secretary)

Corporate Crime analysis: The court held (in a majority judgment (4:1)) that sanctions imposed by the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (the Foreign Secretary) on Mr Shvidler, and (in a unanimous judgment) that sanctions imposed by the Secretary of State for Transport (the Transport Secretary) on a yacht (M/Y Phi) owned by Dalston Projects, in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, were—despite their acknowledged interference with the appellants’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, proportionate and lawful. In a strong dissent, however, Lord Leggatt deprecated the decision of the majority in Mr Shvidler’s case, finding that the sanctions against him, as a UK citizen, were disproportionate and hence unlawful. Of broader application in a public law context, the court departed from the Court of Appeal on the question of the approach to proportionality cases by an appellate court. Written by Kerri McGuigan, senior associate and Liam Lane, associate at Peters & Peters Solicitors LLP.

Speech by Lord Sales on regulatory approaches to AI in public administration

The Supreme Court has published a speech given at Singapore Management University by Lord Sales, analysing the rise of automated decision-making (ADM) in government and the emerging divergence in regulatory approaches to AI worldwide. He contrasts the UK's ‘soft law’ approach using guidelines and frameworks with the EU's comprehensive AI Act, noting the role of data protection legislation and the need to examine the full range of policy options being explored in different jurisdictions. Discussing the court’s role in protecting public law values, Lord Sales observes that as ADM increasingly ‘takes over public functions’ it is inevitable that judicial review claims will increasingly concern AI. He examines how cases like R (Johnson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 778 and Bridges v South Wales Police [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 demonstrate the capacity of judicial review to respond to some of the associated AI risks, highlighting the judiciary’s role in developing doctrine to embed and defend public law values. While technology develops at pace, Lord Sales notes that these underlying values are likely to remain unchanged, with ‘commitment to legality, transparency, accountability, and human dignity’ remaining ‘central to the legitimacy of public administration’, whether ADM is used or not. In conclusion, Lord Sales, emphasises that robust mechanisms to safeguard public law values must be embedded in ADM design and implementation to ensure that automation serves, rather than undermines, good governance and the rule of law.