This Practice Note introduces outsourcing deals and covers the following aspects of the lifecycle of the typical outsourcing transaction, primarily from the customer's perspective: • Characteristics of outsourcing deals • Why organisations outsource • The lifecycle of a typical outsourcing deal • Analyse requirements • Scope project • Commercial considerations • Technical considerations • Regulatory impact • Deal structure • Offshore/near shore and cloud services • Procurement process • Selection and contract • Delivery and contract management • Contract end/renewal The outsourcing process is often complex but provided that it is approached systematically with clear goals in sight, it can be managed in an orderly way. Taking a structured approach enables customers to have realistic objectives, establish how to measure the achievement of those objectives and then contract on a basis that will allow those objectives to be met. Characteristics of outsourcing deals An outsourcing deal involves the transfer of the responsibility for delivering a service to an external provider (or from one external provider to another). Outsourcing deals are more

This Practice Note considers damages for contract breach where the damages sought are for wasted expenditure, management time and litigation costs caused by the contract breach. They are a species of pecuniary loss. For guidance on contractual damages generally, see Practice Note: Contractual damages—general principles; which includes the dicta of Baron Parke in Robinson v Harman as to the compensatory nature of damages for contractual breach, ie that a party who suffers loss as a result of breach of contract is entitled: ‘to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed.’ For further specific guidance on recovering losses for breach of contract, see Practice Notes: • Contractual damages—pecuniary losses (expectation, reliance or gains based financial losses) • Contractual damages—non-pecuniary losses (non-financial losses) Note that contracts often seek to limit or exclude the type of losses that may be recoverable in any particular breach scenario, which can lead to significant disputes and should be a key consideration for lawyers when drafting agreements.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This practical guidance relates to the pre-Procurement Act 2023 regime This Practice Note contains guidance relevant to public procurement exercises commenced before the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) came into force on 24 February 2025. In-scope procurements begun on or after this date are governed by PA 2023. Under the transitional and savings provisions for PA 2023, the previous public procurement regimes continue to apply to the extent necessary to allow contracting authorities to complete and manage procurements commenced before PA 2023 came into force. This Practice Note should be read in that context. For background reading, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023. Further practical guidance on PA 2023 is set out in a separate subtopic, see: Procurement Act 2023—overview. Remedies for breach of PCR 2015 The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102 regulate the procurement of goods, services and works above certain financial thresholds by public authorities, public

For information on the right to a written statement of employment particulars generally, see Practice Note: Written statements of employment particulars. Most regular police officers hold the office of 'constable'. Under common law, a police officer (ie a police constable or a person in a more senior rank) is an officer of the Crown and a public servant. Their powers are exercised by virtue of the

Construction analysis: The Outer House of the Court of Session held that the pursuer’s demand under an on-demand performance bond, given in respect of a contract for the design and construction of a residential development, was valid. The court rejected the defender’s argument that the demand had to specify every factual breach and every contractual provision relied upon—rather, the bond required only the information stipulated by its wording, read through the lens of the reasonable recipient. The court also held that the signature on the demand was sufficient, notwithstanding that the signatory described himself as ‘General Partner’ in an LLP (which was not a position recognised in law). The case is a reminder that what is needed to achieve ‘strict compliance’ with the terms of a bond is ultimately a matter of construction, and that the court will be mindful of the commercial sensibility of competing interpretations.

This Q&A discusses whether or not a clause in a contract between A and B that prohibits B from assigning the contract (ie a non-assignment clause) is effective also to prevent B from creating a charge or other security interest over that contract. For an explanation of how to take security over contracts and receivables due under contracts (where this issue arises often), see Practice Notes: Assignments by way of security, Taking security over contractual rights and Taking security over receivables. Summary The scope and effect of a non-assignment clause is a matter of the proper construction of that clause and the normal rules of construction will apply (Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd ) (National Bank of Abu Dhabi PJSC v BP Oil Limited) Whether a clause prohibits charges or other forms of security depends upon the words used and interpreting the contract as a whole, including the non-assignment itself. Prohibitions against assignment

Under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), an employer cannot make any deductions from the wages of a worker unless: • the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of: ◦ a statutory provision, eg the requirement to make deductions for income tax or National Insurance contributions via Pay As You Earn (PAYE), or ◦ a relevant provision of the worker's contract, eg where the employer provides a loan to the worker and has a contractual right to take money out of the worker's wages in repayment, or • the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the deduction (eg in respect of pension contributions) ‘Relevant provision' in relation to a worker's contract is carefully defined in

What does this Practice Note cover? This Practice Note explains the methods in which a derivatives transaction can be executed. It also provides a high level introduction to smart derivatives contracts. The execution of a derivative contract differs depending on whether the contract is an exchange traded or over-the-counter (OTC) contract. For the former, the execution will often take place through a third party such as a broker and will be subject to standard documentation and clearance and settlement procedures provided by the exchange or its clearing house. This Practice Note concentrates on the process of executing OTC derivative contracts, which typically have no such infrastructure and the mechanics of execution are left for the two parties to the contract to arrange. For a more detailed explanation of the differences between OTC and exchange-traded derivatives, see Practice Notes: OTC and exchange traded derivatives—key features and concepts and OTC and exchange traded derivatives—documentation. Agreement of a contract The principles of contract law will apply to the execution of derivative contracts. That is, an offer by one party,

Termination notice [To] [Date] By [Email, Fax and First Class Pre-Paid Post] Dear [insert name of contractor/sub-contractor] Contract between [insert name] and [insert name] for [insert description of works] at [insert address] dated [insert address] [with order number OR reference number] [insert any applicable contract order number or reference

This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [Name of company], a company incorporated in England with registered number [number] whose registered office is at [address] (the Company); and 2 [Name of employee], of [address] (you). Forthcoming changes: In measures expected to come into force on 1 October 2026, time limits for making certain claims in employment tribunals in Great Britain (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) will be increased from three months to six months. The changes are set out in section 152 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) and ERA 2025, Schedule 12 (not yet in force), and in The Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 (draft), The Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 (draft) and The Employee Study and Training (Procedural Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/473. This Precedent will be updated as soon as the relevant statutory instruments are made. For more information, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Act 2025—tracker. The parties agree: 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 In this Agreement the following expressions

Local Government analysis: Local Pensions Partnership Administration Ltd (LPPA) awarded a contract under a framework. Acquila Heywood Ltd (Acquila) issued proceedings challenging the award on various bases. LPPA then withdrew the award decision and replaced it with a second decision in which Acquila was again unsuccessful. Acquila did not issue proceedings in respect of the second decision or amend its existing claim. The court held that the automatic suspension which arose under regulation 95 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102 only prevented LPPA from awarding the contract pursuant to the first decision. Once that decision had been withdrawn and the bids re-evaluated, it served no further purpose. LLPA was therefore not required to refrain from entering into a contract pursuant to its second decision. LPPA’s application to lift the suspension pursuant to PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 96(1)(a) was unnecessary. Written by Jonathan Lewis, counsel, at Henderson Chambers.

In England and Wales, the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (UK) (TP(RAI)A 2010 (UK)), provides for the enforcement of rights against an insolvent policyholder's insurer. A plaintiff or claimant who has a claim against an insolvent, but insured, defendant should be protected by TP(RAI)A 2010 (UK) through the transfer of the insured's rights under the insurance policy to the plaintiff or claimant (the third party). If, for example, a construction worker brings a claim against their insolvent employer, TP(RAI)A 2010 (UK) enables the employee to pursue his employer’s liability insurers directly. For practical guidance on TP(RAI)A 2010 (UK), see Practice Notes: Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 and (for a summary) Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010—one minute guide. In contrast, the law in the Republic of Ireland did not traditionally afford a person who is not a party to an insurance contract any rights of redress against the insurer. The Consumer Insurance Contracts Acts 2019 (Ireland) (CICA 2019 (IRL)) changed that by introducing an express