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. This content relates to the Procurement Act 2023 regime This practical guidance is about public procurement under the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023). For practical guidance on time limits for challenging a public procurement award under the previous legislation, see Practice Note: Challenging a public procurement award—procedures, remedies and time limits. Challenging a public procurement award A breach of the contracting authority’s duties under PA 2023 is actionable in civil proceedings under PA 2023, Pt 9, with some exceptions. Proceedings may be brought by

This Practice Note sets out certain key cases and associated relevant content on challenging a trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). The cases are divided by topic area and include: • standing • the test • relief For further reading on this topic, see Practice Note: • Role, powers, functions and duties of a trustee in bankruptcy Standing Names of parties Judgment date Case summary Relevant content Ackerman v Leeds [2024] EWHC 1215 (Ch), [2024] All ER (D) 103 (May) 22 May 2024 IA 1986, s 303(1) is not intended to provide a means of redress to a party with no connection to the bankruptcy.A number of limitations apply to bankrupts, creditors and others who were connected with the bankruptcy:• a bankrupt must show that there is or is likely to be a surplus of assets once all liabilities to creditors, and the costs and expenses of the bankruptcy, have been paid • a creditor must

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court considered the validity of administrators’ appointments, made ‘out-of-court’ by a secured creditor under paragraph 14 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), where: (i) the appointments were made under security which the appointing creditor had acquired (together with the underlying debt) with the specific intention of calling an event of default and then acquiring the borrowers’ business and assets out of administration, and (ii) the companies were not actually insolvent, the event of default relied upon to render the security enforceable was the companies’ failure to provide information. The administrators sought reverse summary judgment and succeeded, the court finding that the appointing creditor was not subject to a Braganza duty and nor was its purpose in making the appointments improper.Written by Sam Fenwick, Partner, and Isabelle Burnett, Solicitor Apprentice, at Wedlake Bell LLP.

The applicable legislation for challenging arbitral awards The applicable legislative framework for challenging arbitral awards in Russia includes the provisions of the Law of the Russian Federation on International Commercial Arbitration No 5338-I of 7 July 1993 (the ‘ICA Law’), the Federal Law On Arbitration (Arbitral Proceedings) in the Russian Federation No 382-FZ of 29 December 2015 (the ‘Federal Law on Arbitration in Russia’), the Code of Commercial Procedure of the Russian Federation (the ‘Code of Commercial Procedure’, or ‘CCP’) and the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (the ‘Civil Procedural Code’, or ‘CCivP’), which are addressed in detail below. Although Russian law does not operate within the definition of ‘award’ per se, the following differentiation should be made for the purpose of clarifying the relevant procedural issues: • Domestic arbitral awards—awards issued in proceedings having a seat of arbitration in Russia without a ‘foreign element’ (ie, foreign link) and subject to the provisions of the Federal Law on Arbitration in Russia • International arbitral awards—awards with a ‘foreign element’ (ie

Expert determination is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). This Practice Note provides guidance on when an expert’s determination may be challenged or set aside. For guidance on expert determination generally, including expert determination clauses, appointment and procedure, see Practice Note: Expert determination. For guidance on ADR more generally, see: ADR and dispute resolution clauses—overview. General principles In general, the scope to challenge an expert determination is limited. There is no statutory right to appeal or challenge an expert decision. As the expert’s authority to reach a determination is wholly derived from the parties’ agreement, the courts will look at the agreement when deciding whether the expert’s determination can be challenged (Premier Telecom Communications Group v Webb—see News Analysis: Court of Appeal: expert valuations and mistakes of law (Premier Telecom Communications Group v Webb)). Most agreements to refer a dispute to expert determination provide that the expert’s decision is final and binding with no right of appeal, but may potentially be subject to narrow grounds to challenge the decision,

Grounds to challenge an individual voluntary arrangement An application can be made to challenge the approval of an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) on one or both of two grounds: • that the creditors’ decision approving the IVA unfairly prejudices the interests of a creditor of the debtor • that there has been some material irregularity at or in relation to the creditors' decision procedure The burden of establishing either ground sits with the party making the challenge. Note that the new IVA Protocol applies to all new consumer IVAs proposed on or after 1 July 2025 and so alters the backdrop against which such challenges will be viewed. Key changes include: • the requirement to provide consumers with a key facts document before they agree to the IVA • guidance on when a Protocol IVA is not suitable (eg if the consumer qualifies for a Debt Relief Order, or where the total debt is under £7,000) • the consumer’s family home is no longer an asset covered by the IVA Entitlement

This Practice Note considers challenges and appeals to international and domestic arbitral awards in Australia. The relevant legislative framework The International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (IA Act) governs foreign awards and any recourse available against them in Australia. The IA Act gives effect to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of arbitration Awards (the New York Convention) and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law). Domestic awards are regulated under uniform state-based legislation which applies in each state and territory. For the purposes of this Practice Note, all references to State-based legislation are to the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW) (the CA Act), which applies in New South Wales, unless otherwise specified. Given that the CA Act is based largely on the Model Law (in line with the other Australian States and Territories which have adopted and enacted versions of the Model Law creating a uniform

Note: the French cases referred to below are not all reported by LexisNexis®. French legal framework France has historically been well-known as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, as conditions for challenging arbitral awards are particularly restrictive, although some may see in recent decisions a trend towards increased control of awards by courts in respect of international public policy. The relevant legal framework is found in the Decree No 2011–48 of 13 January 2011, which came into force on 1st May 2011, and is incorporated in Book IV of the French Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). The legal regimes applicable to domestic and international arbitral awards are different. Both types of arbitral awards may be set aside on limited grounds, but only domestic arbitral awards may be subject to an appeal. Other forms of recourse against arbitral awards are also available under certain conditions. Domestic arbitral awards International arbitration is defined under French law at Article

This Practice Note considers challenging arbitral awards under the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA, Saudi or Saudi Arabia). This topic may be referred to as applying to set aside, or annul, arbitration awards under Saudi law. Generally speaking, and discussed in greater detail below, repugnance to Sharia or Saudi public policy form the basis of the annulment of, or refusal to recognise and enforce, arbitral awards in Saudi Arabia. The relevant legal framework • the Saudi Arbitration Law issued through Royal Decree No. M/34 on 16 April 2012 (the Arbitration Law) based on the UNICTRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The Arbitration Law applies to arbitration proceedings taking place in Saudi Arabia and to arbitration proceedings held outside Saudi Arabia when the parties agree to the Arbitration Law being the governing law of the proceedings (Arbitration Law, Article 2) • the Implementing Regulations of the Arbitration Law issued by Cabinet of Ministers’ decision number 541 on 22 May 2017 (the Implementing Regulations of the Arbitration

This Practice Note considers challenging (setting aside) arbitral awards under Austrian law. Note: The decisions of the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) (OGH) referred to below are not reported by LexisNexis®. Section 611 of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (ACCP) (Zivilprozessordnung) is the provision relevant for the setting aside of arbitral awards rendered by arbitral tribunals which have their seat in Austria: ‘(1) Recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by means of an action for setting aside. This shall also apply to arbitral awards in which the arbitral tribunal ruled on its own jurisdiction. (2) An arbitral award shall be set aside if:      (1) a valid arbitration agreement does not exist, or the arbitral tribunal has denied its jurisdiction despite the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, or a party was under an incapacity to conclude a valid arbitration agreement under the law governing its personal status;      (2) a party was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator

This Practice Note examines the legal framework governing the challenge of arbitral awards in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). For the purposes of this Note, ‘China’ and the ‘PRC’ refer to Mainland China only, excluding Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. This Note reflects the amendments to the Arbitration Law adopted in 2025, which came into effect on 1 March 2026. All references to articles of the Arbitration Law is as amended. The National People’s Congress of the People’s of ChinaUnder the laws of the People’s Republic China (PRC), a party to an arbitration may apply to a PRC court to challenge or set aside an arbitral award. The set-aside is known as vacation or annulment in many other jurisdictions. This Practice Note has been updated to take into account the amended law of 2025 which comes into effect on 1 March 2026. All references to articles of the Arbitration Law is as amended. Jurisdiction of the PRC courts and general procedure At statutory

This Practice Note considers challenging arbitration awards in Germany under German law. Note: German judgments are not reported by LexisNexis®. Challenging awards in Germany—the relevant legal framework The relevant legal framework is found in sections 1059 et seqq. in the 10th Book of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO). The ZPO differentiates between domestic and foreign awards, depending on whether the arbitral tribunal which has rendered the award had its seat in Germany or abroad. The grounds for setting aside and refusal of the recognition and enforcement of domestic awards are set out in ZPO, ss 1059, 1060 (2) and mirror Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration (Model Law). The legal standard for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards is governed by ZPO, s 1061 (1) determining that the New York Convention is directly applicable. There are only a few differences between the grounds for challenging domestic awards and for refusing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.