The application and enforcement of any lease covenant is always a matter of interpretation of the covenant, in the context of the lease as a whole, and taking into account the relevant factual background. For guidance, see Practice Notes: Contract interpretation—the guiding principles and Contract interpretation—rules of contract interpretation. As a matter of normal language, where (as here) a

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. PCR 2015 as assimilated law PCR 2015 are EU-derived domestic legislation and therefore assimilated law under sections 2 and 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. For practical guidance on the status and interpretation of assimilated law, see Practice Note: Assimilated law. Brexit impact—public procurement The UK public procurement regime derives from EU public procurement laws, and was therefore impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, but only to a limited extent. In all material respects, the

Public Law analysis: In Millbrook Healthcare Ltd v Devon County Council, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that the assessment of whether a breach is sufficiently serious is not directly relevant to determining whether damages will be an adequate remedy at the interim stage of a procurement dispute, such that damages may still be awarded. In particular, the TCC considered well-known case law authorities, which provide that damages are only available in procurement challenges where the contracting authority's breach is ‘sufficiently serious’ (a test derived in EU law). The point was recently considered in Braceurself v NHS England, in which the TCC held that a sufficiently serious breach should be determined by looking at the nature and quality of the breach, rather than the consequences. The effect of the breach itself was not decisive in establishing whether it was sufficiently serious to award damages. However, in Millbrook, the TCC had to consider (i) whether there had been a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ and (ii) if so, whether damages would be an adequate remedy. Written by James Lupton, director, Elinor Jackson, senior associate and Sam Pringle, senior associate at DWF Law LLP.

Public Law analysis: Supply Chain Coordination Ltd (SCCL), the state-owned entity managing the NHS Supply Chain, applied to lift the automatic suspension following challenges by unsuccessful tenderers (Unipart Group Ltd (Unipart) and D.H.L. Supply Chain Ltd (DHL)) in relation to a logistics services procurement governed by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102. The Honourable Mr Justice Constable in the High Court granted SCCL’s applications to lift the automatic suspension. The courts have been called upon to consider dozens of applications to lift automatic suspensions pursuant to PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 96, with the majority resulting in the suspension being lifted. Consistent with that trend, the court in this case lifted the suspension—reinforcing the pattern of decisions favouring contracting authorities where public interest and service continuity arguments carry weight. Furthermore, the case discusses the requirements for when a tenderer is considered ‘definitively excluded’ (PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 86(7)(b) and 86(8)). Written by Tom Ward, associate, and Andrew Dean, partner, at Bird & Bird.

Public Law analysis: The appellant Secretary of State appealed against the decision of the High Court refusing to strike out the respondents’ claims for damages for breaches of EU law alleged in the tender process for railway franchises. The respondents are train operating companies and had brought judicial review proceedings and Part 7 proceedings claiming Francovich damages for breaches of EU public procurement rules. Both sets of proceedings made allegations of unlawfulness in the tender process, including breaches of the general principles of EU law. The Part 7 damages claims were brought within the statutory six-year time limit for such claims but the judicial review proceedings were raised outside the three-month time limit running from the material decisions of the Secretary of State which the respondents alleged to be unlawful. The High Court refused to strike out the Part 7 damages claims on the ground that they overlapped with the judicial review claims and the Secretary of State unsuccessfully appealed. Written by Denis Edwards, barrister, at Normanton Chambers.

In conducting our research, we have focussed on public procurement under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102. Standstill requirements generally Under PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 86, a procurement award notice (standstill notice) should be sent to all: • tenderers (ie any economic operators that have submitted a tender that has not been definitively excluded from the procedure), and • candidates (ie any economic operators that have been invited/sought an invitation to take part in the procurement and have not already been notified of their rejection and the reasons for it) This means that a contracting authority must provide the relevant standstill information to all unsuccessful tenderers, apart from any that have already been ‘definitively excluded’, together with any candidates that have not already been informed of the rejection of their application to participate. Under PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 86(8), a tenderer is 'definitively excluded' where

Employment news analysis: The government will amend the Employment Rights Bill (ERB) to extend the right for those employed under a zero hours contract or ‘low hours’ arrangement to be offered a guaranteed hours contract to agency workers.

STOP PRESS: on 1 August 2023, the Cabinet Office published three new standard contract document collections, containing updated templates and guidance for the government’s Model Services Contract, Mid-Tier Contract and Short Form Contract. Further guidance on the adoption of the standard contracts is provided in a supplementary Procurement Policy Note (PPN). PPN 08/23: Using Standard

The Scottish Building Contract Committee (SBCC) has issued Errata Sheet No. 1 (August 2026) for the print edition of the Minor Works Building Contract with Contractor's Design for Use in Scotland (MWD/Scot 2024, SBC598). The errata sheet identifies an error in the Contract Particulars at Clauses 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 and details the requisite amendment. Future print edition purchases will include copies of the errata sheet. The digital edition has been updated to incorporate the correction.

The contractual terms To establish that express terms and conditions have been incorporated into a contract, the party seeking to rely on them must show that it has done what is reasonably sufficient to give the other party notice of them: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd and Parker v South Eastern Ry. This will be a question of fact in each case. The more onerous or unusual the terms, the more that needs to be done to bring them to the notice of the other party: Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes and J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw. For further information, see Q&A: Is it sufficient from a contractual perspective to state that a copy of terms and conditions can be viewed elsewhere

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. For further reading on this subject, see: State aid—overview. State aid—generally The European Union Rules (EU rules) on state aid prohibit member states from granting aid or assistance which distorts or threatens to distort competition and inter-state trade. Therefore whenever a public body or publicly-funded body (such as a quango) provides financial support to an undertaking they need to consider carefully whether such support constitutes state aid, particularly given that the European Commission (the Commission) is obliged to claw back any illegally granted state aid (and relevant interest on such aid). However the EU also recognises that state aid may be a necessary element of government policy where for example it wants to attract inward investment into underdeveloped regions (often known as 'assisted areas') or to encourage investment in high technology industries. Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) contains the basic prohibition on the grant of state aid, whereas TFEU, art 7, paras (2), (3) describe the type of state

Public Law analysis: This case is an important reminder that where the outcome of a procurement is based on a marginal difference in scores, even a minor breach of duty by the contracting authority can have big repercussions. Although all bar one of the unsuccessful bidder's claims were rejected by the court, the claimant ('Braceurself') was able to successfully argue that the contracting authority, NHS England ('NHSE'), had made a manifest error in its evaluation of one of Braceurself's responses to the Invitation to Tender ('ITT'). The court was satisfied that but for this manifest error Braceurself would have been awarded a higher score for that question, which would have rendered it the successful bidder in the procurement. This case also serves as a helpful example of the principles that the Court will follow in determining a complaint of manifest error against a contracting authority. Written by Dylan Milner-Stopps, solicitor at Trowers & Hamlins LLP.