Public sector contract management

This subtopic is aimed at public sector lawyers dealing with contract matters and considers some of the key issues that parties may encounter during the contract lifecycle, including:

•
amendment and variation
•
subcontracting
•
transfer
•
rights of third parties

The guidance in this subtopic is intended to provide an overview of the main commercial issues which may be relevant to the management of contracts in the public sector. Further detailed guidance on commercial contracts, plus the full range of precedent agreements is available from Lexis+® UK Commercial.

Amendment and variation

A person purporting to vary the terms of a contract must have the authority to do so. Any agreement to vary a contract is subject to general contract principles and needs to be supported by consideration. Where the amendments favour one party only, it may be more difficult to establish an effective binding contract. If an attempted variation fails due to a lack of consideration, it may be possible to give effect to the variation by way of waiver or promissory estoppel. For a general summary of the law, guidance and practice relating

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

Pension scheme’s failure to fulfil commitment to provide information about annual allowance was maladministration, despite no legal obligation (Dr S, CAS-60994-H2H2)

Pensions analysis: The Pensions Ombudsman has upheld a complaint about member communication. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Public Law weekly highlights—12 June 2025

This week's edition of Public Law weekly highlights includes: a warning in Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank on the improper use of generative AI in legal submissions, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland, which found that early release provisions under Polish law carry limited weight in assessing the proportionality of extradition under Article 8 of the ECHR. Also in this edition, findings from HM Treasury's Covid Counter Fraud Commissioner on losses linked to Covid-19 contracts and a consultation response on regulations aimed at addressing modern slavery risks in NHS procurement. Case updates this week include judicial review decisions against the Secretary of State for Transport and Lambeth London Borough Council, a number of freedom of information decisions, further analysis on the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers, plus analysis reflecting on the logistics of lifting the automatic suspension in public procurement challenges. This edition features further updates on Brexit highlights, Brexit SIs, Post-Brexit transition guidance, public procurement, constitutional and administrative law, equality and human rights, judicial review, state security and intelligence and information law.

Equality Act 2010 provisions refer to biological sex, regardless of gender recognition certificate (For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers)

Public Law analysis: The Supreme Court held that the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) refer to biological sex. Its relevant provisions cannot be interpreted as including ‘certificated sex’ under a gender recognition certificate (GRC) without rendering them incoherent and unworkable. In relation to sex discrimination, a person has the protected characteristic of their biological sex only. The relevant provisions of the EqA 2010 fall within the section 9(3) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004) and so displace the rule in s 9(1) of that Act that the gender of a person with a GRC is for all purposes the acquired gender. This is a very significant judgment on the meaning of the EqA 2010, and on the law of discrimination particularly as it affects women and trans people. It must be understood by all those who advise on or are concerned with discrimination law, particularly employers, service providers and public authorities. Written by the LexisNexis Public Law team.

Cabinet Office publishes statement on Windsor Framework implementation

The Cabinet Office has published a joint statement on the Windsor Framework implementation committee meeting, which was co-chaired by representatives from the UK government and the European Commission. The Committee reviewed developments since March 2025—including the previous session on 6 March 2025—and reaffirmed the commitment to a full, timely, and faithful implementation of the Framework, as reiterated at recent EU-UK meetings. Notable advancements were reported in the customs area with the deployment of new facilitation measures for freight and parcel movements that commenced on 1 May 2025 and the planned provision of full IT system access to Union representatives within six months. Progress was noted in the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) area, particularly in the pet movement scheme but significant work remains to finalise safeguards for the movement of agri-foods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland (with particular attention to certificate issuance and appropriate labelling). Additionally, the committee discussed the role of the Joint Consultative Working Group and its sub-groups, emphasising ongoing engagement with Northern Ireland stakeholders, and examined the implications of the Artificial Intelligence and Cyber Resilience Acts for the Framework’s effective functioning, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the Framework.