ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.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. This includes the following Practice Note: How to deal with confidentiality issues—PA 2023. Confidentiality in public procurement—pre-PA 2023 This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes:

If the parties to a private residential tenancy (PRT) did agree a fixed term duration: • would this affect the ability of either party to terminate the PRT (using the notice procedures set out in Part 5 of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 (PH(T)(S)A 2016)) before the expiry of the term, and • if one party terminated the PRT before the expiry of the fixed term, would the other party have any remedies for breach of contract? PRTs—termination requirements PRTs were introduced by PH(T)(S)A 2016. Any new tenancy starting on or after 1 December 2017 will be a PRT, provided the property is let to a tenant as a separate dwelling; the tenant lives in it as

Arbitration analysis: The DIFC Court upheld its jurisdiction to grant interim measures in support of DIFC-seated arbitration, despite a competing jurisdiction clause favouring Abu Dhabi courts. The case concerned a deadlocked joint venture dispute where one shareholder attempted to make strategic decisions without required board approval. The court confirmed that an arbitration agreement operates as an independent contract governed by the law of the seat (DIFC law), rejecting arguments based on UAE public order rules. The decision reinforces key principles: the importance of clear dispute resolution clause drafting, the autonomy of arbitration agreements, the primacy of the main agreement's dispute resolution clause in multi-contract scenarios, and the DIFC Courts' power to grant urgent interim relief pre-arbitration. The case also highlights the risks of unilateral action in deadlocked joint ventures. Practical implications written by Antonia Birt of Reed Smith LLP.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the meaning of tort, quasi delict and delict in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. It covers how Article 5(3) is to be interpreted—a pivotal aspect of that interpretation being how to determine where the harmful event giving rise to the damage occurred. The Practice Note also considers where the harmful event occurs in relation to specific types of claim being economic loss, damaged and defective goods, intellectual property claims, actions for inducing reach of contract and personal injury claims. The Practice Note also deals with claims with co-defendants and considers the issue of seeking a declaration that a party does not have any liability in either tort or delict. Note: since 10 January 2015 Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I has been repealed in its entirety and replaced by Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). However, transitional arrangements have been put in place. For information on those arrangements and whether Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels

As set out in Practice Note: IR35—introduction, developments and key difficulties, the IR35 regime comprises two main elements. This Practice Note explains the aspect of the IR35 regime which applies where an individual worker provides services to an end client through an intermediary, such as a personal service company (PSC) or partnership, in circumstances where the individual would otherwise: • for income tax purposes, be regarded as an employee or an office-holder of the end client, and • for National Insurance contributions (NICs) purposes, be regarded as employed in employed earner’s employment by the end client other than where the end client is a public authority or a medium or large private entity with a UK connection. This regime is referred to as the ‘small client off-payroll regime’ throughout this Practice Note and all other items in this subtopic. In situations where the end client is a public authority or a medium or large private entity with a UK connection, the other aspect of the IR35 regime applies. That regime is referred to as

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes coverage of key local government announcements in the King’s Speech 2024. It also includes expert analysis on the decisions in DELTA Merseyside Ltd & Veezu Holdings Ltd v Uber Britannia on when a contract for hire of a PHV is not a contract; Care Northeast v Northumberland County Council on challenging public authority decision making under a private law contract and LIDL v EDDC in which the High Court quashed out of town retail permission for failure to consider a competing scheme. Case reports include Fertre v Vale of White Horse DC on dismissal of a French citizen’s appeal against the local authority’s decision to refuse housing assistance due to them being a ‘person from abroad’ and dismissal of an appeal against a decision revoking a premises licence for a night club in Walk Safe Security Ltd v Lewisham LBC. The weekly highlights also includes further updates on Governance, Social housing, Licensing, Social care, Public procurement, Education, Healthcare, Planning, Local government finance and Highways.

The issue of payment and cash flow is crucial in any industry, but particularly in construction. If a party is not paid it is possible that it may be unable to continue with its obligations on a project. Non-payment in construction contracts can take a number of forms: • late payment • reduced payment • no payment at all There are several remedies available to the party awaiting payment. The most suitable remedy or combination of remedies will depend on the nature and seriousness of the dispute. The options include: • a statutory right to suspend (this can also be included as a contractual right) • a statutory right to refer a dispute to adjudication (this can also be included as a contractual right) • a right to claim interest (statutory or contractual) • commencement of court or arbitration proceedings for recovery of payment or damages • termination of the contract This Practice Note provides an overview of the various options available for each of the three types of non-payment: late payment, reduced payment

This Practice Note is an introduction to the FIDIC Green Book 2021 (the Short Form of Contract). It is not a fully detailed clause-by-clause commentary. In December 2021, FIDIC launched the second edition of the Green Book. For more information on the background to the release of the second edition of the Green Book, and the key differences between the first and second editions, see News Analysis: FIDIC Green Book 2021—what’s changed? For information on other contracts in the FIDIC suite, see: • FIDIC contracts 2017 onwards—overview • FIDIC contracts pre-2017 editions—overview For what type of project is the Green Book suitable? The FIDIC Green Book is primarily intended ‘for projects where the perceived level of risk is low, and/or where construction parties wish to use a form which is simple to use and does not require significant contract administration and management resources’. Its use is not restricted to simple or repetitive works and/or short duration and/or limited capital value projects. The Green Book

1 It is denied that the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent. As the term set out at paragraph [2.2] of the Grounds of Claim makes clear, there was no mutuality of obligation between the Claimant and the Respondent. 2 In the circumstances it is denied that the Claimant is able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal under Regulation 2 of the Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015 or at all. 3 Paragraph 2 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted. 4 No

The doctrine of privity of contract provides that, as a general rule, subject to some exceptions, only the parties to a contract can have enforceable rights and obligations under that contract, which means that in practice, only a contracting party may sue another contracting party for breach of that contract. For further details, see Practice Note: Third party rights—the common law doctrine of privity of contract. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A

In construction and engineering projects, the financial consequences of a breach of contract may be considerable. For example, if the work is defective or delayed the employer may suffer losses such as remedial costs, wasted costs, loss of profits, loss of business and loss of revenue. Losses caused by a breach of contract are only recoverable if they satisfy the remoteness test set out in Hadley v Baxendale, that is to say, the loss is a direct loss or a consequential (also known as an ‘indirect’) loss. The meanings of these terms are explained further below. It can sometimes be difficult to determine whether a particular loss is a direct loss or a consequential loss, as it will always depend on the particular circumstances. The distinction can be particularly important in construction matters, as many construction contracts limit or exclude liability for consequential loss. For more information on excluding or limiting consequential loss in construction contracts, the care that should be taken when drafting such provisions, and the approach taken in standard form construction

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes the release of the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) Target Cost Contract family, a House of Lords consultation on whether the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) has the necessary skills and resources to ensure the safety of all buildings, the Welsh Government’s publication of circular letter WGC 004/2025 amending the Building Regulations 2010, analysis of a Technology and Construction Court (TCC) case regarding the validity of a payment notice (1st Formations v Lapp), a King’s Bench case in which the court considered whether a highly critical online review of the claimant’s work were defamatory (Johnson v Helm), the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT)’s updated practice notes on contract selection and Building Information Modelling (BIM), updated guidance on the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023), the Construction Industry Training Board’s proposed levy on employers in the construction industry and the Architects Registration Board (ARB)’s new Architects Code of Conduct and Practice.