In short, yes there is some restriction on the use of CPR 8 in the context of seeking a declaration. This really comes down to where the complexity in the claim lies. CPR 8.1(2) confirms that a claimant may 'unless any enactment, rule or practice direction states otherwise, use the Part 8 procedure where they seek the court’s decision on a question which is unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact'. The procedure under Part 8 can certainly be used where the parties require a decision on complex questions. For example, this might relate to the construction of a contract or indeed the construction of a statute. However, the procedure will not be suitable where the underlying facts are complex and in dispute. In particular, cases that involve allegations of fraud are unlikely to be suitable for Part 8. If the defendant considers that the claim is unsuitable for the Part 8 procedure, it can object on the acknowledgment

This Q&A raises two questions. The first question concerns the impact of the completion of an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) on the jurisdiction of the court to make an order under section 263(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) upon the application of the debtor. The second question concerns the approach of the courts in allowing private law rights of action by the debtor against the supervisor of the IVA. It highlights the practical need for insolvency practitioners to make clear in what capacity they are acting at various points during the run-up to the approval of an IVA. This Q&A does not address any contractual claim that the debtor may have (eg in respect of financial advice given by the supervisor before the IVA is approved). Such a claim depends on whether a contract has been entered

Constructive dismissal For unfair dismissal purposes, a resignation (ie termination of the employment by notice by the employee) is treated as a dismissal: • when it happens in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal, or • where the cause of the employee's resignation is the employer's threat to dismiss them Under the express terms of section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), a resignation will be treated as a dismissal by the employer for the purposes of an unfair dismissal claim, if the employee resigns in circumstances in which they are entitled to terminate their contract without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct (ie in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal), even where the employee resigns with notice. For

We have assumed that: ‘This query relates to the competitive procedure with negotiation under regulation 29 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102.’ Is it permissible for the contracting authority to revise its invitation to tender or other procurement documentation during the procurement process or must they remain unchanged? The statutory formula and process for the competitive procedure with negotiation (negotiated procedure) expressly foresees a contracting authority making revisions to its invitation to tender or other procurement documentation. The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102, reg 29(16)(b) directs the authority to ‘inform all tenderers whose tenders have not been eliminated…of any changes to the technical specifications or other procurement documents, other than those setting out the minimum requirements’. While this indication is permissive of changes to the technical specification, changes should not cause the contract in question to fall outside the scope of contracts

Arbitration analysis: This is a rare case of leave to appeal an arbitration award in Hong Kong. The Arbitration Ordinance enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, with some modifications. One of the modifications was the inclusion of Schedule 2 which preserves the right to appeal an award on a question of law, subject to obtaining leave from the court. The Model Law contains no appeal rights. Schedule 2 of the Arbitration Ordinance applied to domestic arbitrations for a transition period of 6 years from the commencement of the Ordinance (ie until 31 May 2017), or if the parties specifically opt in to Schedule 2. This decision involves the appeal of an earlier refusal of leave. CS sought to appeal a May 2024 arbitration award in a construction dispute on the basis of four questions: (1) construction of a sub-contract concerning environmental requirements and fill usage, (2) expert assessment methodology for rock fill calculations, (3) double recovery issues, and (4) interpretation of contract provisions regarding seawall work omission. Madam Justice Mimmie Chan denied leave to appeal on all four grounds in November 2024, finding that the issues were either factual determinations or not obviously wrong in law. CS appealed this decision and the matter went to an oral hearing. On 7 February 2025, the judge allowed appeal on Questions 1 and 3, finding these had reasonable prospects of success and denied leave to appeal of Questions 2 and 4. Written by Andrew Rigden Green, partner, head of International Arbitration (Greater China) at Stephenson Harwood.

Construction analysis: In a case concerning a contract for the installation of electrical equipment and cable circuits, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that the substation owner’s decision to carry out a more expensive remedial scheme in relation to its contractor’s defective cable circuit work (which did not require significant power outages, compared to another suitable scheme which did) was reasonable in circumstances where: (i) the substation owner had a wider business and reputational interest in maintaining the connection; (ii) there was a public interest in maintaining electricity generation; and (iii) the solar farm owner requested the substation owner to avoid power outages and had offered a financial contribution, subject to recovery, to the additional costs involved to keep the ability to generate electricity (thereby protecting itself from revenue losses due to outages).

The International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) has published the first issue of ‘FIDIC Infrastructure Global’, a newsletter providing updates on its activities, partnerships, events, training programmes and publications. The newsletter highlights FIDIC's Global Infrastructure Conference 2026, which will be held in New Delhi, India, and reports on recent collaboration initiatives with organisations including the International Transport Forum and the World Wildlife Fund, alongside updates on industry events held in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. FIDIC also reports that its Contracts Committee continues to progress work on its contracts and guidance documents, while promoting its training and certification programmes. The publication further features the Association of Consulting Engineers Norway (RIF), which is working with the Norwegian government on climate-resilient infrastructure and sustainable public procurement, and provides details of upcoming conferences, webinars, contract user events and selected FIDIC publications.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has found that the asylum system is under significant strain, with substantial policy and operational changes being implemented without adequate control over delivery risks, costs, or system-wide impacts. In its report, PAC notes that the Home Office is only aware of the locations of the ‘vast majority’ of failed asylum seekers and highlights that 41% of asylum claims from January 2023 remain unresolved. The report urges the government to provide estimates of the number of failed asylum seekers in the UK and to set out likely removal timescales. It further calls for the establishment of an end-to-end accountability framework, a long-term asylum accommodation strategy developed in collaboration with local authorities, a shared evidence base across departments, and enhanced measures to address accommodation contract oversight, illegal working risks and barriers to case progress.

Public Law analysis: When awarding a public contract ‘in-house’, applying the Teckal exemption criterion of whether the contractor carries out essential parts of its activities for a controlling contracting authority, an activity imposed on the contractor by a non-shareholder contracting authority, for the benefit of other non-controlling local authorities, is a third party activity and should not be taken into account. But in the case of several joint-controlling local authorities, account can be taken of activities carried out by a contractor for those authorities before such joint control took effect. Joseph Dalby, barrister at 4–5 Gray’s Inn Square, considers the case of Undis Servizi Srl v Comune di Sulmona and another.

Commercial analysis: The case concerned an attempt by Monoprosopi to recover damages from Maersk following a container fraud by the shippers. The shippers had fraudulently stuffed the containers with worthless concrete blocks rather than copper scraps. On the facts, Maersk was found not to be in breach of their duties, whether under Article III.3 of the Hague Rules (as contractually incorporated), contract, or tort, in declaring the goods in apparent good order and condition. Absent any knowledge of a substantial discrepancy as to weight, Maersk did not have a duty to check the shipper-declared weight as against the verified weight of the cargo. Written by Natasha King, barrister at 4 Pump Court.

This week's edition of Commercial weekly highlights includes: a Court of Appeal decision in J.P. Morgan Securities plc v VTB Bank PJSC upholding anti‑suit injunctions restraining a Russian bank from pursuing proceedings in Russia brought in breach of an arbitration clauses and aimed at circumventing English law‑governed contractual arrangements; a Court of Appeal decision in Kassem v Bank Audi SAL confirming that comprehensive replacement banking terms give rise to a new consumer contract; and a Court of Appeal decision in Deckers UK Ltd v Up & Running (UK) Ltd confirming that a sportswear brand’s selective distribution arrangements for certain products do not amount to a restriction of competition by object under the Competition Act 1998.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has launched a consultation seeking views on a package of proposed refinements to the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme to support Allocation Round 8 (AR8) and subsequent rounds, aimed at improving scheme efficiency, enabling innovative technologies and supporting timely deployment while maintaining value for money. Proposals include: retaining restrictions on bidding previously surrendered CfD capacity, introducing hybrid metering for single technology/multiple commercial arrangements, contract changes for floating offshore wind (FLOW) (extending the Longstop Period and reducing Required Installed Capacity (RIC)), creating a new ‘Other Deepwater Offshore Wind’ (ODOW) category, strengthening Unilateral Commercial Operations Notice (UCON) provisions for distribution-connected generators, excluding applications with Gate 1 connection offers, removing default bids, adjusting sealed bid visibility. The consultation closes on 30 January 2026.