In a public procurement exercise regulated by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102 , a contracting authority may award a contract to a tenderer that: • is not excluded • meets the selection criteria, and • satisfies any non-discriminatory rules and criteria applied for limiting the number of candidates (where applicable) PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 57(8)(g), which derives from Article 57(4)(g) of Directive 2014/24/EU, permits contracting authorities to exclude an economic operator from participation in a public procurement procedure on the grounds that the economic operator has shown ‘significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract...which led to early termination of that prior contract, damages or other comparable sanctions.’ Express provision to exclude a bidder for poor performance in previous contracts was introduced by the PCR 2015, SI 2015/102 in order to drive value and

Section 12(2A) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) was added by paragraph 21(4) of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA 2014) and came into force on 22 April 2014. This addition to ChA 1989, s 12 provides the court with the power to grant parental responsibility to a person who is not a parent or guardian to the child concerned but is named in a child arrangements order (CAO) as someone with whom the child spends time or otherwise has contact. The parental responsibility conferred under ChA 1989, s 12(2A) lasts so long as the linked CAO is in force. The provision has been in force for over two years, but there do not appear to be any reported case which address ChA 1989, s 12(2A). The ChA 1989 does not itself give any guidance on when an order should be made other than that the

This Q&A assumes that your query relates to a scenario in which a contractor has been engaged under a ‘traditional’ form of building contract—ie a contract under which it is to provide workmanship and materials, without any express obligation to design any part of the works. There are not any cases in which the courts are aware of which have considered whether the term ‘workmanship’ entails any design responsibility, simply as a matter of contractual interpretation. Broadly, however, there may be three scenarios in which a contractor engaged under a traditional contract may have, or assume, some degree of design liability: Temporary works A contractor will normally have design responsibility for the temporary works that it puts in place, before the final design is prepared by the designers and the permanent works are constructed—unless it is obliged to follow the instructions of a third party regarding the temporary works considered. For more information, see Practice Note: Design liability in construction

The issue of whether the imposition of a charge makes a difference to what is reasonable in the circumstances was addressed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Trustees of Portsmouth Youth Activities v Poppleton. The claimant sustained catastrophic injury at a commercial indoor climbing centre, which charged a fee for the use of its facilities, when he attempted a dangerous leap from one climbing wall to another. Leaping from one wall to the other was prohibited by the rules of the climbing centre but the claimant was not shown those rules when he signed in and paid the entrance fee. The actual climbing was not supervised. In overturning a finding of 25% primary liability that was made against the defendant by the trial judge at first instance (HHJ Richard Foster) the Court of Appeal held, in the

In Post Office v Aquarius, defective joints in the basement of an office building let in water so that the basement was unusable. The court held that a covenant to repair does not carry with it an obligation to remedy poor design, faulty installation or any other defect that has not caused damage to a property. Since no damage to the building had been proved and the flooding in the basement, together with the inconvenience it caused, did not constitute disrepair, the tenants were under no liability to the landlords under the repairing covenant to carry out any work to the premises in order to remedy the defect. In Quick v Taff-Ely, poorly designed double glazing units led to condensation and black mould in the premises. Although decided under section 32(1) of the Housing

The duty to make reasonable adjustments comprises three requirements. The element that is common to all three requirements is that they will only apply where a disabled person is put at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a 'relevant matter' in comparison with persons who are not disabled. The distinction between the three requirements is that each one contemplates a different cause of that substantial disadvantage: • the first requirement applies where a 'provision, criterion or practice' applied by or on behalf of the person subject to the duty (eg the employer) causes such a disadvantage • the second requirement applies where a 'physical feature' causes it • the third applies where a disabled person would be put at such a disadvantage if an 'auxiliary aid' were not provided In relation to the first requirement and the phrase 'provision, criterion or practice' (PCP), and your

For general information on the equitable duty of confidentiality, including the test for information to be classed as confidential and protectable as such, see: Confidential information—overview and commentary: Breach of confidence: Halsbury's Laws of England [232]. Confidentiality and lenders For information on the principles and case law behind the duty of confidentiality of banks which, while different

The statutory formula for child maintenance under the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991) makes no connection between whether the paying parent is having contact with the children and the amount of maintenance, save to the extent that the shared care provisions apply under CSA 1991, s 3(5) which provides that: ‘For the purposes of this Act there may be more than one person with care in relation to the same qualifying child.’ The Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012, SI 2012/2677, reg 46(2) state that: ‘…the determination is to be based on the number of nights for which the non-resident parent is expected to have the care of the qualifying child overnight during the 12 months beginning with the effective date of the relevant calculation decision.’ The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) has discretion to consider a lesser period of

Why might a secured party want a floating charge to qualify as a financial collateral arrangement? Where a charge qualifies as a 'security financial collateral arrangement' (SFCA) under the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No 2) Regulations 2003, SI 2003/3226, this can confer significant benefits on the secured party, or 'collateral taker'. Practice Note: Key provisions of the financial collateral regulations sets out in detail the impact of qualifying as an SFCA. In particular: • Easier creation/registration of security explains how an SFCA does not need to be registered at Companies House in order to be valid and enforceable • Disapplication of insolvency law sets out which aspects of insolvency law are disapplied—of particular relevance in relation to floating charges are: ◦ hardening period for new floating charges ◦ requirement to set aside ring-fenced funds for unsecured creditors  ◦ requirement to pay preferential creditors out of floating charge assets  ◦ the right

In general all persons, whether of full age and capacity or not, are competent to receive gifts. For these

The general position is that a liquidator acts as an agent on behalf of the company and does not stand in the shoes of the company and the company assets do not vest in them (see Re Regent Finance & Guarantee (not reported by LexisNexis®)). For further reading, see Practice Note: Role, powers, functions and duties of a liquidator. Ordinarily an auditor would be instructed by the company and therefore any duty of care would be to the company, rather than an individual director or

The Claimant and Litigation Friend are required to attend a hearing unless there is a good reason why either one or both should not be required to attend. We refer you to the extract from Butterworths PI Litigation Service, which states: ‘Applications for approval will be heard by a master or district