Public Law analysis: This case provides the first judicial guidance on the test for lifting an automatic suspension under section 102 of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023). The Technology and Construction Court held that the new statutory regime represents a substantive departure from the American Cyanamid approach, with the adequacy of damages no longer carrying determinative weight. His Honour Judge Keyser KC emphasised that the court must balance the public interest in lawful procurement against the interests of suppliers and any other relevant considerations. Although damages were considered an adequate remedy for Parkingeye, the suspension was maintained because there was no sufficiently compelling public interest favouring contract award. The decision suggests contracting authorities may face greater difficulty obtaining orders lifting automatic suspensions under PA 2023. Produced in partnership with Sam Pringle and Ed Williams of DWF Law LLP.

This practical guidance relates to the Procurement Act 2023 regime 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 (where applicable), whereas those begun under the previous legislation (the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102, the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, SI 2016/274, the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, SI 2016/273, and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011, SI 2011/1848) must continue to be procured and managed under that legislation. This practical guidance focusses on public procurement under PA 2023. For background reading on the previous regime, see Practice Note: Introduction to public contracts procurement—pre PA 2023 [Archived]. For practical guidance on automatic suspension under the previous legislation, see Practice Note: Automatic suspension—pre-PA 2023. Automatic suspension PA 2023, which governs procurements of public contracts above applicable thresholds (see Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023 ), automatically imposes a requirement that prevents a contracting authority from entering into or modifying

This practical guidance relates to the pre-Procurement Act 2023 regime This Practice Note contains guidance relevant to public procurement exercises commenced before the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) came into force on 24 February 2025. In-scope procurements begun on or after this date are governed by PA 2023. Under the transitional and savings provisions for PA 2023, the previous public procurement regimes continue to apply to the extent necessary to allow contracting authorities to complete and manage procurements commenced before PA 2023 came into force (ie ongoing procurements). This Practice Note should be read in that context. For background reading, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023. Further practical guidance on PA 2023 is set out in a separate subtopic, see: Procurement Act 2023—overview. This includes the following Practice Note: Automatic suspension—PA 2023. Automatic suspension The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102 that govern procurements above the relevant thresholds set by the Cabinet Office (see Practice Note: Introduction to public contracts procurement—pre PA 2023 [Archived]), automatically impose a requirement

ARCHIVED : This archived Practice Note looks at the government’s failed attempt, in 2015, to introduce a system of automatic transfers of small pension pots (also known as ‘pot follows member’) through the Pension Act 2014. Work on this was put on hold in October 2015, and this until July 2023 when the government officially decided to drop the ‘pot follows member’ approach in favour of a multiple default consolidator model to deal with the problem of deferred small pension pots. This Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information only. FORTHCOMING DEVELOPMENT: On 22 November 2023, the DWP published its response to the consultation on ending the proliferation of deferred small pension pots. The purpose of the consultation was to gather views on a proposed automated consolidation solution to tackle the rise of deferred small pots. The government concluded that the multiple default consolidator model is the best approach to tackling the deferred small pots challenge and has the potential to provide more net benefits to

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The existing enhanced protection from redundancy that is available to employees during pregnancy, maternity leave and other types of statutory leave (and for an additional period after the leave has ended) is to be extended to cover other forms of dismissal. The powers to make regulations under sections 49D, 74, 75C, 75J, 80D and 80EH of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) were extended by sections 26 and 27 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025), in force 6 January 2026 and 6 April 2026 respectively, and regulations are expected to come into effect in 2027 (probably on either of the common commencement dates of 1 April or 1 October). The Department of Business and Trade has published a Factsheet on enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women and new mothers and a consultation on the proposed new measures ran between 23 October 2025 and 15 January 2026. For more information, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Act 2025—tracker. Once it has been established that a claimant has the right to bring an unfair

There is a distinction between insane and non-insane automatism; insane automatism, otherwise known as insanity, does not provide a complete defence but rather a special verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’. However, a defence of non-insane automatism provides a total defence which results in an acquittal. The distinction is that insane automatism is caused by an internal factor whereas the involuntary action for non-insane automatism must be caused by an external factor. Practitioners will need to consider carefully whether a defendant lacks the necessary mens rea due to non-insane automatism or whether the defence of insanity applies. Consideration will also need to be given to whether the automatism was self-induced by the defendant. This Practice Note focuses on non-insane automatism. See Practice Note: The defence of insanity regarding the defence of insane automatism (insanity). Burden of proof Where the defence of automatism is raised by the defendant, the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt by showing that the act(s) done were voluntarily. In most cases the defence of automatism should be supported by medical evidence,

An act or acts carried out while a person can be said to lack the capacity to make independent rational decisions or lacks the animus to prevent themselves from carrying out an act.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision to close the investigation on 28 April 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts ARCHIVE 28/04/2017 Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel in the market for automotive exhaust systems (AT.40170). Latest development On 28 April 2017, the Commission closed its

CASE HUB (appeals lodged at the General Court in Cases T- 140/26, T- 140/26 R, T- 148/26 and T- 149/26) ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the final decision of 15 December 2025; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline European Commission (Commission) Article 101 TFEU investigation into an alleged cartel for the supply of automotive starter batteries in the EEA (Case AT.40545). Latest development On 15 December 2025, the Commission announced it had fined three automotive starter battery manufacturers, as well as the trade association, a total of €72m. The level of fine imposed on each undertaking was as follows:• Clarios—no fine (as a result of being awarded immunity) • FET—€6.11m, of which €5.366m is jointly and severally payable with Resonac (the fine includes a 50% reduction for leniency) • Elettra (FET's predecessor)—€15.594m • Rombat—€20.218m, of which €11.557m is jointly and severally payable with Metair (the fine includes a 30% reduction for leniency) • Exide—€30m • EUROBAT—€125,000 In

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 10 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into five cartels in the market for wire harnesses for cars (case number COMP/39.748). Latest development On 10 July 2013, the Commission issued its infringement decision and imposed fines totalling €141m. Sumitomo was awarded immunity from fines after it revealed the existence of the cartels to the Commission, admitted wrongdoing and co-operated fully. All other defendants had their

This Practice Note considers the following data protection, privacy and security issues arising in connection with the use of autonomous and connected vehicle technology: • The technology • Declaration of Amsterdam • Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) • United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation • Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 • Cybersecurity • The Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 • Connected and autonomous vehicles in the EU • International • Practical issues For more information about other key legal issues arising in connection with this technology in the UK, see Practice Notes: Autonomous vehicles—key legal issues and Autonomous vehicles and insurance, and for a summary of key dates and information, see: UK automated vehicles—tracker. To track developments in the EU, see Practice Notes: Automated vehicles—key legal issues in the EU and EU automated vehicles—tracker. The technology Modern vehicles already feature a range of external communications systems such as satellite navigation, in-car entertainment and emergency assistance capable of automatically reporting precise location information to emergency services. Over

This Practice Note considers the impact of Part 1 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (AEVA 2018), and the recommendations made in the Law Commissions’ Automated Vehicles: joint report, on the UK’s motor insurance framework, looking at: • The existing motor insurance framework • The development of AEVA 2018 and the Law Commissions’ joint report • The level of automated vehicle that AEVA 2018 will apply to • The role of the associated legal actors • The current position on primary and secondary liability under AEVA 2018 • The scope of liability under AEVA 2018 • Limitation periods • Data retention and disclosure • Ongoing reform This Practice Note does not cover AEVA 2018, Pt 2, which makes provision in relation to charging electric vehicles. For a summary of key dates and information relating to the development of autonomous vehicles regulation, see Practice Note: UK automated vehicles—tracker. See also: • Practice Note: Autonomous vehicles—key legal issues • Practice Note: Autonomous and connected vehicles—data protection, privacy and security • Precedent: