A contractual right of pre-emption requires the landowner, should they decide to sell, to offer it to the holder of the right of pre-emption for a price which is either specified in the pre-emption agreement or is to be ascertained by a market valuation or by reference to a formula. In some cases, the holder of the right of pre-emption is simply entitled to be told of the landowner's wish to sell, following which the holder of the right of pre-emption has an opportunity to make an offer that may be accepted or rejected by the landowner. There is doubt whether a right of pre-emption is a 'contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land' for the purposes of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous

In these circumstances, there would be two contracts—that between the consumer and the company as contractor and that between the company and its subcontractor. The issue is therefore whether the company can insert a clause in its terms and conditions with the consumer that the consumer is prohibited from dealing directly with the subcontractor. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 The legal position is governed by statute, namely the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) and whether such a term restricting the consumer in this way is enforceable under CRA 2015. For an overview of CRA 2015, see Practice Note: Consumer Rights Act 2015—summary. CRA 2015 received Royal Assent on 26 March 2015 and clarified and consolidated the existing muddled consumer legislation on unfair terms which had previously been contained in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms

We have limited this answer to cover public procurement procedures under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102 involving a separate selection stage. PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 55(1) provides that contracting authorities shall, as soon as possible, inform each candidate and tenderer of a decision reached concerning the conclusion of a framework agreement, the award of a contract or admittance to a dynamic purchasing system. PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 55(2)(a), goes on to confirm that on request from the candidate or tenderer the contracting authority shall within 15 days of such a request inform them of the reasons for the rejection of its request to participate. Furthermore, a contracting authority also needs to comply with the requirements of PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 86. PCR

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Dorant v Dorant, which provides guidance on the court’s approach to kin inquiries, genealogy and forensic DNA testing; (2) HMRC v MedPro Healthcare, in which the Court of Appeal confirmed the Martland approach to late appeals; (3) updates to Companies House transition plan for implementing ECCTA 2023 provisions; (4) the House of Lords report warning that IHT changes on pensions remain unworkable without further reform; (5) Charity Commissioner for England and Wales v The Information Commissioner, in which the UKFTT allowed an appeal by the Charity Commission to withhold disclosure of charity trustee name dispensations; and (6) Conway v Conway and another, where the court held that section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 barred specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has published the statutory notices for Allocation Round 8 (AR8) of the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme, confirming key auction details for the next allocation round. The notices set out administrative strike prices, delivery years and the pot structure for AR8, among other information. The confirmed auction details provide that administrative strike prices will be frozen at Allocation Round 7 levels across all technologies, with other deepwater offshore wind receiving the same administrative strike price as floating offshore wind. DESNZ has also published the final AR8 contract allocation framework, which sets out the eligibility requirements and other rules relating to how the allocation round will be run.

This week's edition of Energy weekly highlights includes a News Analysis explaining the background, detail and implications of the merger between the National Infrastructure Commission and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority. There is also coverage of The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)’s consultation on potential amendments to the Contract for Difference (CfD) Standard Terms and Conditions (ST&Cs) in relation to relaxing certain eligibility requirements for fixed bottom offshore wind projects for Allocation Round 7 (AR7). In addition, this week, Ofgem launched a new consultation on the project assessment framework for the first allocation round of the Long Duration Energy Storage (LDES) cap and floor subsidy regime, and announced a decrease in the energy price cap for Q3 2025.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In this case the court had to construe paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 6 to the Electricity Act 1989 (EA 1989) in connection with an application to restrain the advertisement of a winding-up petition. The court held that there was no justification for construing the word ‘premises’ within that paragraph to mean ‘the entire premises’. Consequently, the deemed contract (or contracts) that arise(s) under that paragraph of EA 1989 must arise between the supplier and the party (or parties) using the supply. The ‘owner’ of the entire premises (here, there freeholder) would only be liable for the cost of the supply if the premises are unoccupied. This provides clarity to practitioners and property owners about the liability that arises automatically under EA 1989, in particular in the context of premises divided up into multiple units—such as shopping centres (as was the case in this decision). Written by Isabel Petrie, barrister at Selborne Chambers.

Ofcom has launched a consultation on proposed changes to its guidance for Public Service Broadcasters (PSBs) when drawing up their Codes of Practice on the commissioning of independent productions. These proposed changes stem from new laws introduced under the Media Act 2024 (MA 2024).  Key changes to the guidance include reflecting PSBs' increased flexibility in meeting their independent production quotas, including utilising on-demand players, and implementing a new transparency measure, requiring PSBs to inform independent producers about the application of their Codes prior to contract negotiations. Additional proposed changes to the guidance consider market developments and current commissioning practices since its last revision in 2007. The consultation closes on 10 March 2025. Ofcom intends to publish its statement and final guidance in summer 2025.

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) has published a Practice Note explaining its approach to assessing the compatibility of arbitration clauses in multi-party and multi-contract scenarios under the 2018 and 2024 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules. The document, which does not amend the Rules, provides guidance on HKIAC's practices when deciding on consolidation of arbitrations or permitting single arbitrations under multiple contracts. It includes examples of compatible and incompatible clauses, offers drafting recommendations, and explains how HKIAC balances party autonomy, procedural integrity, and equal treatment. The Practice Note aims to enhance understanding of HKIAC's application of Articles 28 and 29, particularly in light of the 2024 Rules that came into effect on 1 June 2024.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) enforced an adjudicator’s decision, requiring payment of the £650,000 balance omitted from an interim certificate, and refused a stay of execution. It held that the adjudicator had not exceeded his jurisdiction by considering the parties’ treatment of the advance payments in earlier certificates, because that material formed part of the arguments deployed in resolving the referred dispute. Although the adjudicator had gone further than necessary by finding a breach of contract, the parties had been invited to address the point and it did not affect the relief awarded. A stay was unjustified because the reimbursement conditions had not been satisfied and no insolvency, dissipation or risk of non-recovery was alleged.

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes a Court of Appeal decision upholding the Technology and Construction Court (TCC)’s decision to strike out several heads of claim in a defective premises claim (Wilson v HB (SWA)), the British Standards Institution (BSI)’s approval to develop a new British Standard on sustainability competence across the built environment sector, the Scottish Government’s Q3 2025 update on the Cladding Remediation Programme, a TCC decision reaffirming the business common sense approach to interpreting payment regimes (Vision Construct v Gypcraft), New Engineering Contract (NEC)’s launch of NEC Digital, introduction of the Planning Inspectorate (PINS)’s mandatory land tracker for NSIP applications, the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2025, the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra)’s environmental permitting reforms to accelerate construction projects and the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR)’s publication of its Fifth Special Report of Session 2024–25 on forced labour in UK supply chains.

Property Disputes analysis: In Durkan Estates Ltd v Wallace Estates Ltd, the TCC refused summary judgment on whether delay in performing a Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022) remediation agreement amounted to repudiatory or anticipatory breach. Although the remediation order and regulatory context heightened the practical importance of timely performance, they did not alter the common law test for repudiation or make time of the essence. Durkan had a real prospect of establishing estoppel, prevention and affirmation arguments requiring factual investigation at trial. The decision emphasises the importance of expressly aligning contractual completion dates with remediation deadlines, allocating regulatory delay risk and providing effective cure and termination machinery. Practitioners should also ensure that positions adopted in concurrent First-tier Tribunal (FTT) proceedings do not inadvertently affirm a contract or compromise termination rights. Produced in partnership with Alice Sims of Keating Chambers.