The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of the appellants, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal that where a cause of action accrues at, or on the expiry of, midnight, the day immediately following should be included for the purposes of calculating the limitation period. As a result, the appellants’ claim, which concerned allegations of negligence, breach of trust and breach of contract, was brought out of time and was therefore statute-barred. Chris Snell, barrister at New Square Chambers, comments on the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The Health Research Authority (HRA) has announced, on the 30 July 205, updates to its suite of model commercial agreements used in clinical research with participating NHS and Health and Social Care (HSC) organisations. The revisions align the agreements with the model Commercial Chief Investigator Agreements (mCCIAs) published in June 2025 and incorporate feedback from users of earlier versions. The changes affect provisions on information sharing and contract signing, and the updated templates must be used in new IRAS submissions from 1 October 2025.

The Crown Commercial Service (CCS) has published an article on the latest priority list of commercial agreements anticipated to be awarded under the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023), which is anticipated by the Cabinet Office to go live in October 2024. The CCS has said that PA 2023 is not retroactive, therefore all current live commercial agreements will continue operating under the Public Contract Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102. Additionally, the CCS has said that it will be operating under both the PCR 2015 and PA 2023 for a period of time, until existing agreements expire, are replaced, or cease to exist.

Letter prior to service of statutory demand and/or winding up proceedings [contact name, job title and department] [name of company] [address] [ Your reference ] [ Our reference ] Dear [insert contact name] [title and date of agreement and names of parties] (the ‘Agreement’): Outstanding debt We refer to our [ [invoice reference [insert reference]] OR [application for payment dated [insert date]] ] [and our letter(s) to you dated [insert date(s)]]. As you are aware, we are seeking to recover from you the outstanding

The tax treatment of payments in lieu of notice (PILONs) fundamentally changed under the amendments to sections 402–404 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) which became effective from 6 April 2018. In broad terms, the amendments mean all PILONs, whether paid pursuant to an (implied or express) contractual PILON provision or not, are fully taxable and subject to both employee and employer National Insurance contributions (NICs). This is achieved by an employer being required to carry out a post-employment notice pay (PENP) calculation. As set out below, this calculation is necessary to allow employers to identify which element of a termination payment is taxable. As a result, the pre-2018 distinction between PILONs which were paid pursuant to an (express or implied) contractual PILON provision (which were treated as fully taxable) and those which were not paid pursuant to a contractual PILON provision (which were capable of benefiting from the £30,000 tax exemption and which were entirely free from

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes the Supreme Court’s decision in Providence v Hexagon, which concerned the interpretation of the termination provisions of the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) Design and Build Contract 2016, a decision of the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) on whether an employer’s assignee had a right to refer a dispute to adjudication (Paragon Group v FK Facades), publication of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)’s first Building Safety Newsletter, and an analysis of the proposed National Planning Policy Framework reforms.

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes a case in which the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) rejected arguments that a sub-contractor’s claims were compromised in a company voluntary arrangement and that an adjudicator's decision had been procured by fraud (Henry Construction v ProMEP), a case in which the court considered an application for reverse summary judgment with regard to breach of contract and unjust enrichment (Matrix Receivables v Musst Holdings), publication of the seventh annual survey of international arbitration statistics by the LexisNexis Arbitration Blog, and guidance published by the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) on the meaning of ‘call-off’ in procurement.

Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Cox and Kings Ltd v SAP India Pvt Ltd and another (‘Cox and Kings’) marks a significant development in Indian arbitration jurisprudence. The decision clarifies the applicability of the Group of Companies doctrine in arbitration in India, in multi-party and multi-contract arbitrations. This decision addresses the complexities of consent and the possibility that arbitration agreements may bind non-signatory entities within a group of companies and is therefore important for arbitration practitioners and transactions lawyers to note. Written by Anuradha Agnihotri, of counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills and Didon Misri, associate (India) at Herbert Smith Freehills.

A knowingly false assertion intended to mislead another and make them agree to a contract because of that misrepresentation.

The China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC) has published its 'Report on Supply Chain Dispute Resolution Through the Lens of Typical Arbitration Cases' at the fourth China International Supply Chain Expo in Beijing. The report draws on 12 concluded CMAC arbitration cases spanning procurement, cross-border warehousing, shipbuilding, marine insurance, freight forwarding and inland and ocean transport. It identifies legal risks including unilateral contract termination, improper liens, good faith guarantees, tariff adjustments and multimodal transport disputes. The report recommends that international supply chain dispute resolution mechanisms develop towards more proactive, integrated, digital and globalised approaches to support supply chain stability.

The New Engineering Contract (NEC) has announced that it has expanded NEC4 secondary Option X29 to formally incorporate nature alongside climate change within infrastructure and built environment contracts, with the revised clause unveiled at the NEC Annual Conference on 18 June 2026. Originally developed to embed measurable climate change and whole-life carbon performance requirements into contracts, Option X29 now also covers biodiversity net gain, habitat connectivity, drought resilience, sustainable urban drainage, canopy cover, soil health and carbon sequestration. The update introduces a Nature and Climate Hierarchy, requiring contracting parties to prioritise nature-based and nature-positive solutions before conventional engineered approaches while continuing to apply carbon optimisation principles throughout project delivery.

This week's edition of Commercial weekly highlights includes: commentary on the Supreme Court decision in Lifestyle Equities CV v Amazon UK Services Ltd which considered the application of EU and UK trade mark law to the cross-border marketing and sale of goods on Amazon’s US website, analysis of the Canadian case of South West Terminal Ltd v Achter Land which considered whether a thumbs up emoji constituted acceptance of a contract, and news that the Advertising Standards Authority has launched two projects to investigate the supplier pathway of irresponsible ads online.