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 (ie ongoing procurements). 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 bodies and other publicly funded organisations in England, Wales and Northern

TMT analysis: In linked applications, the High Court awarded damages to an unhappy former dating agency client for deceit and misrepresentation because of the information she was provided by the agency before paying a substantial fee to sign up. It also awarded damages to the dating agency for defamation as a result of negative reviews she left about the agency on Google and Yelp.

TMT analysis: The High Court has upheld a claim for slander in relation to a statement made in front of 90 members of the claimant’s community at a church meeting and awarded £35,000 in damages to a claimant. Slander claims are rare and this judgment provides helpful guidance to practitioners as to the way in which the law will be applied to such cases.

IP analysis: This case involved the misappropriation and misuse by an ex-employee (Ludley) of their ex-employer’s (Cosmopolitan) data, amounting to both a breach of confidence both in equity and under contractual confidentiality obligations; and passing off. Much of our case law on the nature of protectable confidential information and the obligations of confidence that it attracts, has its roots in similar scenarios where ex-employees have taken information assets acquired during their employment and used them in their subsequent ventures. Such information isn’t always deemed to amount to confidential information warranting protection post-employment but, in this case the data taken by Ludley was considered to contain the necessary quality of confidence. Of particular interest in this case were also the judge’s comments on Ludley’s conduct (including destruction of evidence, untruthfulness and ‘egregious’ behaviour) and the impact this is likely to have had on the damages awarded. Written by Emma Kennaugh-Gallacher, senior professional support lawyer at IP firm Mewburn Ellis.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This is a judgment in a highly unusual case in which, in order to avoid being liable for damages and costs on the discharge of an injunction he obtained, a claimant argued that the injunction application was a nullity as a result of his own procedural errors. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

This Practice Note considers CPR PD 51ZB, which deals with a pilot scheme to test an online claims process for County Court damages claims where parties are represented by a legal representative who is registered with the service. The claims are managed using an online portal called the Damages Claims Portal (DCP). The pilot scheme runs from 28 May 2021 until 6 April 2027 (CPR PD 51ZB, para 1.3). The pilot scheme is part of a wider HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) reform initiative, more information on which can be found on GOV.UK—Modernising courts and tribunals: benefits of digital services. The DCP provides a full end-to-end digital service for dealing with eligible County Court damages claims. Also see the following Practice Notes: • Online Civil Money Claims pilot scheme—CPR PD 51R—for information on the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) pilot, which provides an online service for dealing with County Court specified money claims under CPR PD 51R • Online County Court money claims—key features—which provides a high-level overview of the DCP and

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the use of damages (or quantum) experts in international arbitration. The Practice Note aims to: • introduce lawyers who are less familiar with damages to some of the key issues, and • provide insights for lawyers with more damages experience to consider alongside their own experience and possibly enhance their approach The focus of this Practice Note is on the procedural and strategic issues related to using damages experts. It considers how lawyers can work with experts without needing to suddenly become a mathematics or ‘Excel’ reporting expert. This Practice Note considers: • when a damages expert is necessary • the pros and cons of using experts • engaging damages experts • identifying the right experts, and • tips for working with experts While this Practice Note is focused on the role of damages experts, many elements of the guidance will be relevant to the use of other categories of experts. Further reading on the use of experts in international arbitration proceedings can be found in the following

This Practice Note provides practical guidance to lawyers less familiar with damages to some of the key issues. It also provides some insights for lawyers with more damages experience to consider alongside their own experience and possibly enhance their approach. In particular, how lawyers can best work in cases involving models in order to (1) understand the basis for the model (2) test the assumptions used against the evidence (3) best communicate the issues to the tribunal. This is all without having to become a modelling expert. For considerations on when a damages expert is necessary, the pros and cons of using experts, identification and engagement of experts and tips for with expert, see Practice Note: Damages experts in international arbitration. The key point is that if you as advocate don’t understand the core issues underlying damages claim, you will not be able to properly convey those to a tribunal but that if you work with your expert,

Property Disputes analysis: The Court of Appeal has held that general damages for breach of a repairing covenant are subject to the 10% Simmons v Castle uplift. This analysis looks at the arguments raised for disapplying the uplift in disrepair cases, and provides a summary of the decision. Written by Thomas Stockton, associate solicitor at MSB Solicitors.

Damages recoverable for personal injury caused by the negligence of others.

Property analysis: A Supreme Court ruling that a local authority landlord should pay substantial statutory damages to a tenant it had unlawfully evicted by mistake is considered by Robert Brown, of Arden Chambers.

NOTE: On 2 December 2024, the Lord Chancellor announced that the discount rate would change to positive 0.5%. The positive 0.5% discount rate is effective from 11 January 2025. Schedule A1 to the Damages Act 1996 provides that each subsequent review must be started within the five-year period following the last review. For these purposes, a review is concluded when the Lord Chancellor makes the determination as to the rate. This Practice Note addresses heads of damage commonly claimed in clinical negligence litigation including pain and suffering, loss of earnings, loss of congenial employment, pensions and care and assistance. It includes practical tips and also addresses causation and periodic payments. Introduction This Practice Note addresses heads of damage commonly claimed in clinical negligence litigation. However, it does not cover claims under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 or the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. Causation—don’t forget it Causation is essential in any personal injury claim but presents particular challenges in clinical negligence matters. It is likely that the claimant had health