Justice has published a report ‘Beyond the Blame Game: A responsible and rights-centred approach to government contracting’, which has looked at current government contracting across local and central government. Key findings as reported by Justice include: that individual service users and their rights are ignored when services are contracted out; central government and local authorities do not have proper information about the quality of outsourced public services and are often unaware of rights abuses until too late; and, contracts do not adequately protect individual service users, and some local authorities are contracting out assessments without even a written contract. Justice have also made five recommendations to create a ‘rights-centred and responsible approach to government contracting’. These recommendations include: increasing early engagement to better assess services and possible problems/solutions; emphasising value during procurement; using contracts to ensure rights compliance, clarify responsibilities for both parties and provide accountability; pro-actively manage contracts through monitoring and oversight mechanisms; and, improving transparency and accountability for better governance, better decision-making and learning points.

The Cabinet Office has reissued several Procurement Policy Notes (PPNs) ahead of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) ‘go-live’. These PPNs update the guidance on a range of topics to reflect PA 2023 and associated regulations. Topics covered include the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, open book contract management, reservation of below-threshold contracts, carbon reduction plans, contracts with Russia and Belarus, the Armed Forces Covenant, modern slavery, steel procurement, the Commercial Playbooks, the Security Classification Policy, standard contracts, the Cyber Essentials scheme and AI use. These PPNs are said to not constitute a change in policy or a new call for action, and in-scope organisations do not need to repeat actions which were required when the PPNs were originally published, but they should take note of the PPNs and continue to apply any ongoing obligations in them from 24 February 2025. Contracting authorities are reminded that PA 2023 does not apply to procurements commenced, or contracts awarded, before 24 February 2025. In each case, in-scope organisations are directed to the previous version of the PPNs for procurements which pre-date PA 2023.

Arbitration analysis: Iftikar Ahmed (‘Ahmed’) was an employee of Oak Management Corporation (‘Oak’). Oak dismissed Ahmed from his employment after he was indicted for insider trading. Subsequently, Oak commenced an arbitration against Ahmed for breach of his employment contract. Ahmed fled from the US to India and used his absence as a pretext to argue that he was impeded from participating in the arbitration. The arbitration proceeded nonetheless and the sole arbitrator eventually decided to dismiss Ahmed’s counterclaims and strike his defenses by applying the equitable ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’. After a damages hearing that Ahmed did not attend, an arbitral award for c.$57m was issued in Oak’s favor. The Connecticut trial court dismissed Ahmed’s motion to have the award vacated and he appealed. The Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed this appeal holding that the arbitrator was entitled to apply the ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ and declining to find any lack of due process. Written by Alex Wilbraham, Solicitor England & Wales, admitted as a special legal consultant in the District of Columbia, independent arbitrator and member of Arbitra International.

Employment analysis: In considering a challenge to the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal to determine unfair dismissal and discrimination claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) and the Equality Act 2010, the Employment Judge (1) failed to recognise the important distinction between international jurisdiction on the one hand and territorial jurisdiction on the other, thereby wrongly conflating the two, (2) erred in concluding that, in any claim involving an individual contract of employment, alternative routes to establishing international jurisdiction could be found beyond those in sections 15C and 15D of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, and (3) erred in concluding, on the facts found by him, that territorial jurisdiction could be established by ERA 1996, s 199(7) and regulation 3 of the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011, but (4) had not erred in concluding that territorial jurisdiction in respect of the ERA 1996 unfair dismissal claim arose by applying the principles in Lawson and in Ravat, according to the EAT.

IP analysis: The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) determines issues concerning the admissibility and relevance of trial witness evidence in an action relating to breach of contract, trade mark infringement and patent infringement. The judgment discusses key legal principles in the application of the exceptions to the without prejudice rule and looks at the court’s approach to complex interim hearings within the context of the IPEC. The court granted an application to strike out parts of trial witness evidence that were protected by the without prejudice rule. This decision highlights that the burden to establish whether an exception to the without prejudice rule applies falls on the party seeking to rely on an exception and emphasises the narrow scope of such exceptions. It also serves as a reminder of the underlying purpose of the IPEC, and the cost-benefit test that is applied to evidence and interim applications. The trial is scheduled to be heard in June. Written by Luke Maunder, associate director and Anna Baines, associate at Osborne Clarke LLP.

Public Law analysis: Siderise Insulation Ltd have been successful in obtaining permission to bring a judicial review challenge in respect of the decision by the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea to prohibit the use of their products and prohibit contracts with them as a supplier in all projects going forward, a decision that had been taken by the council as a result of the reports issued by the Grenfell Inquiry. The judgment handed down regarding Siderise’s permission application indicates how important the full decision will be, touching on issues concerning the following of policy by the council, the ability of the council to exclude bidders from future procurements under the Public Contract Regulations 2015 and how issues of limitation should be interpreted where a judicial review concerns a procurement matter. While procurement law is changing, as new procurements are subject to the Procurement Act 2023, the case will still provide useful guidance for public bodies on how to conduct themselves in matters concerning sensitive policies and commercial providers. Written by Sarah Whittle, legal director at Blake Morgan.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has issued a section 24 direction under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, imposing consent requirements on 10 Surrey authorities ahead of the 2027 local government reorganisation. From 8 July 2026, the affected authorities must obtain written consent from the relevant shadow authority before: (1) disposing of land where the consideration for the disposal exceeds £100,000; (2) entering into capital contracts where the consideration payable exceeds £1 million or which contain terms allowing the consideration payable to be varied or (3) entering into non-capital contracts where the consideration payable exceeds £100,000 and the contract runs, or may be extended, beyond 1 April 2027. The direction applies to authorities to be dissolved under the Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026, SI 2026/264, which will establish East Surrey Council and West Surrey Council as unitary authorities from 1 April 2027. Consent must be obtained from the East Surrey or West Surrey Shadow Authority, as applicable, with consent from both required where a Surrey County Council decision relates to areas covered by both shadow authorities.

Commercial analysis: The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024) received royal assent during the ‘wash up’ period, following the announcement of the July General Election. One very significant area of focus in the DMCCA 2024 (following the UK Government's 2021 consumer protection consultation and the earlier Penrose report) is subscription contracts. Subscription contracts are big business, with estimated consumer spending in the UK on subscriptions said to be between £28bn and £34bn a year across multiple sectors, with eight in ten UK consumers having at least one subscription. The reforms in the DMCCA 2024 were prompted by concerns that consumers may be spending as much as £1.8bn per year on subscriptions they do not think are good value for money and can find difficult to exit when they no longer require the relevant goods/services. The new rules are expected to come into force towards the end of 2024, once regulations are passed. Richard Shaw, partner, Anna Blest, senior knowledge lawyer, and Krish Raichura, associate, all at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, discuss the key changes and how these will affect the subscription contract model below.

The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on draft Social Public Works Clauses designed to implement Part 3 of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 (SPPP Act 2023) in major construction contracts worth over £2m. The consultation does not revisit the policy intent set out in SPPP Act 2023 but asks whether the draft clauses correctly reflect it. The clauses address prompt payment, employment opportunities for disadvantaged groups, compliance with employment and health and safety law, worker training, opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises and voluntary organisations, and environmental requirements including sustainable resource use and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Contracting authorities must consider the published clauses, take all reasonable steps to include and implement them in main contracts and subcontracts, and notify Welsh Ministers if they cannot do so. Ministers may request further information, accept or reject the reasons provided, and direct authorities to take additional steps, with notifications and directions made public. The consultation invites views on the adequacy and applicability of the clauses, including their use in standard contract forms, the sufficiency of supporting explanatory notes, and the potential effects on the Welsh language, with respondents encouraged to suggest measures to enhance positive impacts or mitigate adverse ones. The consultation closes on 19 January 2026.

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has delivered its judgment in Banco Santander, SA v JAC and MCPR (Case C-410/20). The judgment follows a request for a preliminary ruling concerning, among other things, the interpretation the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive 2014/59/EU (EU BRRD), made in the context of a dispute between investors in Banco Popular Español SA (Banco Popular) and Banco Santander SA, in its capacity as successor to Banco Popular, as to Banco Santander’s liability for defective information provided in the Banco Popular prospectus issued pursuant to the Prospectus Directive 2003/71/EC, on the basis of which those investors subscribed for Banco Popular shares. The CJEU ruled that the Banco Popular investors are precluded from bringing an action for liability against Banco Santander under Article 6 of the Prospectus Directive based on defective information provided in the prospectus, nor can they seek to annul the share subscription contract, in the circumstances where either action was brought after the closing of the resolution of Banco Popular.

Arbitration analysis: It is well established that an anti-suit injunction (ASI) can be granted in support of arbitration proceedings seated in England. However, the courts are cautious about granting interim relief in support of foreign arbitrations. SQD argued that the English court should grant an ASI in this case because (i) the agreement to arbitrate is subject to English law and the English courts have an interest in securing the performance of an English law contract; and (ii) an ASI could not be obtained in France. The judge observed that the English courts will not act in every case where the relevant agreement is subject to English law and held that an English court should not grant an interim ASI where an ASI would be inconsistent with the curial law of the arbitration and with the choice of the parties. As the evidence indicated that French law objects to ASIs, would not recognise an English ASI and indeed might even grant an anti-ASI injunction, the judge dismissed the claim. The decision underlines the principle that the English court will defer to the courts of the country of the seat in relation to interim relief. Written by Jennifer Haywood, arbitrator and mediator at Serle Court.

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA) has recommended reforms to Singapore’s International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA 1994), commissioned by the Ministry of Law to enhance efficiency, certainty, and party autonomy in arbitration. Key proposals include an opt-in right of appeal on points of law, codifying a choice of law rule linking arbitration agreements to the governing law of the underlying contract, and granting courts de novo review of jurisdictional rulings. Gustavo Moser and Jennifer Puntis from the arbitration team in the UK curated and oversaw an analysis by Ervin Tan, Advocate and Solicitor and Director at Adroit Law LLC, who comments on how these measures, while consistent with global reform trends, also depart from English law in important ways. The reforms are designed to control costs, reduce delays, and better meet commercial expectations, though they raise debates about balancing efficiency, accuracy, and finality. Ultimately, the analysis highlights that tribunal quality and institutional practices remain decisive in shaping the arbitration experience.