The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has responded to Ofcom's consultation on prohibiting inflation-linked price rises, which ran from 12 December 2023 to 13 February 2024. The CMA considers mid-contract price rises in the telecoms sector as principally a matter for Ofcom. The CMA agrees that inflation-linked price variation terms plus an additional percentage is likely to cause consumer harm. The CMA welcomes the improvements Ofcom’s proposals would make and believes they will remove financial uncertainty for consumers and make it possible to calculate the total cost of a contract when deciding between options which will in turn promote more effective competition between providers. The CMA also recommended to keep taking further action under consideration.

Arbitration analysis: The Fiona Trust principle is that parties, as rational businesspeople, should be assumed to have intended any dispute arising out of their relationship to be decided by the same tribunal (Fiona Trust v Privalov). The principle is relied upon most commonly where a party wishes to have a single arbitral tribunal determine multiple disputes arising out of one contract. The ‘Extended Fiona Trust Principle’ is where the Fiona Trust principle is applied to a scenario where multiple disputes arise under multiple related agreements between the same parties (per Mr Justice Bryan in Terre Neuve Sarl & others v Yewdale Ltd & others, a decision of the English Commercial Court). In H v G, Mr Justice Chan in the Hong Kong Court of First Instance held that the Extended Fiona Trust Principle had been displaced by clear language, which showed the parties wished disputes arising out of Contract A and Contract B to be resolved separately. It is the latest in a string of cases in the Hong Kong courts in which parties have tried (and mostly failed) to apply the Extended Fiona Trust Principle. Written by Ben Bury, Partner, and Stephanie Yu, senior associate, at HFW.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes the latest developments on local government reorganisation (LGR), with five Leicestershire councils issuing a pre-action letter preserving their right to challenge the government's preferred LGR proposal for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, and the County Councils Network setting out priorities for the government's review of the LGR programme. Public procurement developments include expert analysis of Involve v DWP, on re-moderation, causation and conflicts management in procurement, a claim concerning the National Heritage Memorial Fund's award of a contract to Workday, and the Cabinet Office's updated Sourcing Playbook financial viability risk assessment tool. Further case analysis includes Girdler v Caerphilly CBC, in which the High Court upheld the council's library closure decision, confirming the court's reluctance to interfere with strategic local authority choices where relevant statutory duties and guidance have been conscientiously addressed. Further updates include Governance, Education, Highways, Planning, Environmental law and climate change and Local authority prosecutions.

Delay analysis is a technical method employed by programming/planning specialists to identify the delay and the cause(s) of that delay to the completion date of the works on a project. Delay analysis assists in identifying critical delay and its cause or causes. Contractual entitlement, responsibility and liability must then be determined by applying the terms of the contract and the governing law to those findings. Computer software is a common feature of delay analysis. This Practice Note provides a summary of the different methods of delay analysis commonly used, and the key terminology that arises. It follows the approach taken in the second edition of the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol (SCL Protocol), at guidance section 11. The SCL Protocol is guidance only: it is neither a contract document nor a statement of law and gives way to the express terms and governing law of the contract. For more information on the SCL Protocol, see Practice Note: Delay and disruption in construction projects—The Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol. There

This Practice Note looks at how the Standard Commercial Property Conditions (Third Edition—2018 Revision) (SCPCs) set out the parties’ respective obligations regarding the physical condition of the property and for the insurance of the property in between exchange and completion. For more detailed guidance on negotiating provisions relating to insurance and risk, see Practice Note: Buyer’s contract negotiation guide—insurance and risk. When does risk pass to the buyer? Under SCPC 8.1, risk passes to the buyer on exchange of contracts (this is also the open contract position). Physical condition of the property Except where the property is being built or converted by the seller, the seller gives no warranty as to the physical condition of the property. SCPC 4.2.1 reflects the general principle of caveat emptor and imposes a duty to inspect on the buyer. The buyer cannot claim against the seller for defects in the property which make the property unfit for purpose unless an express warranty is added to the contract to provide for the risk to remain with the

_______________________________________ [NAME OF PROJECT] PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS OBJECTION CONCERNING [THE DISPUTE BOARD OR [DB member name] (DISPUTE BOARD MEMBER)] [Date] _______________________________________ Objecting Party: [Name of Party 1] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF THE OBJECTING PARTY] The Dispute Board: [Name of DB member] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [[Name of DB Member 2] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [Name of DB Member 3] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address]] The Other Party: [Name of Party 2] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [[The Engineer/Employer’s Representative] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address]] [ [Relevant institution]: ] [[Institution name] [address]] [[telephone]] [[email address]] [NAME OF PROJECT]: procedural fairness objection and request for directions concerning [the Dispute Board’s conduct OR [DB member name’s] conduct as Dispute Board member][: [if the objection concerns only a particular step in the DB process, include brief details here]] We refer to the contract between the Objecting Party and the Other Party for [brief description of project] dated [date] (the Contract), which provides for the use of a dispute board (the Dispute Board). [The Contract incorporates the [relevant institutional dispute board rules] (the Applicable Rules)] [The Parties have agreed to use the [relevant institutional dispute board rules and details of where the parties agreed to use them] (the Applicable

Since its introduction in September 2021, the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) has been gradually replacing the training contract route to qualification and become the means of qualification following an apprenticeship. This Practice Note explains the SQE and implications for employers offering training and work experience to aspiring solicitors. It sets out the key elements of the SQE and the timeframes for qualification as a solicitor under this route. It also explains the transitional arrangements as the training contract route to qualification is phased out. For information on the training contract route to qualification, see subtopic: Training contracts. For information on the apprenticeship route to qualification, see Practice Note: Solicitor apprenticeships. For information on the work experience element of SQE, see Practice Note: Qualifying work experience (QWE). The SQE route to qualification In order to qualify as a solicitor under the SQE, the candidate must: • have a UK degree in any subject (or a qualification or experience that is equivalent to a degree—this would include a solicitor apprenticeship) • pass two SQE assessments • have

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). Tender notices replace contract notices under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102. For practical guidance on contract notices under PCR 2015, see Practice Note: Prior information notices and contract notices. What is a tender notice? Under PA 2023, a tender notice is required in order to commence a competitive tendering procedure. PA 2023, s 21 sets out:

This Practice Note looks at Option X12 of the NEC3 and NEC4 contracts, entitled ‘Multiparty Collaboration’ in NEC4 and ‘Partnering’ in NEC3. It is one of the secondary Options in the NEC contracts, which can be selected by the Client (the ‘Employer’ in NEC3) to tailor the contract to its particular needs or the needs of the project (see Practice Note: NEC contracts—introduction). References to the Client include the Employer where NEC3 is used, unless the context requires otherwise. Option X12 was originally derived from the Construction Industry Council’s ‘Guide to Project Team Partnering’. It was first issued in June 2001 as a secondary Option (Option X12), for incorporation into the NEC2 Engineering and Construction Contract (ECC). Like the other secondary Options, Option X12 supplements the Core Clauses and selected main Option. In the case of Option X12, it is incorporated in order to introduce partnering concepts and mechanisms into an NEC contract (see Practice Note: Partnering). Option X12 is largely the same in NEC4 as it was in NEC3, in terms of substance. However,

Set-off is a complex yet important concept in legal proceedings generally and for many different types of transaction. Independent set-off and transaction set-off can both be used as a defence in legal proceedings. For more information, see Practice Notes: Independent set-off and transaction set-off and Pleading set-off. In commercial transactions, transaction set-off will be an important right for a party who is claiming breach of contract as a defence to a claim for payment under that contract. Contracting parties may also specifically cater for set-off in their written contract, either by extending or limiting the scope of rights of set-off between them. For more information, see Practice Note: Contractual set-off. Contractual set-off, insolvency set-off and banker's set-off will be important for many finance transactions. For more information, see Practice Note: Set-off in finance transactions. Set-off is also frequently used in the construction industry to manage cash flow. For more information, see Practice Note: Set-off in construction. Set-off can also often arise within the context of landlord and tenant relations

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd, the Supreme Court has endorsed the approach to employment status assessments set out by the Court of Appeal in HMRC v Atholl House Productions Ltd, with mutuality of obligation and the existence of control being necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, conditions for a contract of employment to exist. In analysing the scope of those concepts as pre-conditions to a finding of employment, the Supreme Court made clear that the bar to their satisfaction is set at a low level and therefore what is of greater significance and importance is the subsequent overall assessment taking into account the terms of the contract and surrounding circumstances, which itself will require further consideration of the nature and extent of any control and ongoing mutuality of obligations. Written by David Smith (partner) and Melissa Beer (knowledge lawyer) at DLA Piper UK LLP.

The Department for Education (DfE) has published its education and skills funding agreements and contracts for 2026–27, including extensions to the 2025–26 agreements and procured contracts, such as the contract for services for procured non-levy apprenticeships, education and training. The agreements and contracts set out the obligations of education and training providers in return for receiving public funding, as well as the circumstances in which the department may intervene in cases of educational, financial or other provider failure. The funding period runs until 31 March 2027, and the contract for services covers matters including funding and payment, service delivery, quality assurance, data submission and protection, and the circumstances in which funding may be withheld, suspended, repaid or terminated.