Private Client analysis: This case represents a rare example of the court finding that a contract existed between family members (in this case, an elderly mother and her adult daughter). By her claim, the claimant sought to be reimbursed from her mother’s estate for the care that she had provided to her mother during the last few years of her life. The judge provided guidance relating to capacity to enter into legal relations and commented on what, if any, impact the existence of a Lasting Power of Attorney may have on this issue. It was also a feature of the case that the claimant’s mother had been diagnosed with dementia, and so this is also featured in the court’s consideration of capacity. Finally, the claim was also advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment, and the judge provided detailed analysis of whether ‘free acceptance’ is a valid unjust factor. In this last respect, his decision departs from the recent decision of H&P Advisory Ltd v Barrick Gold (Holdings) Ltd in which Simon Gleeson (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) dismissed free acceptance as a free-standing unjust factor, as well as obiter observations of Lord Burrows in Barton v Morris. Written by Ben Haseldine, barrister at 4 King’s Bench Walk.

Arbitration analysis: Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A. (‘HSR’) obtained an arbitral award against Corporacion AIC S.A. (‘AICSA’) following the cancellation of a hydroelectric project in Guatemala. AICSA applied to the US Courts to annul the award on the basis that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its powers. AICSA’s application was initially declined because the courts declared themselves bound by an Eleventh Circuit precedent that precluded vacatur of non-domestic awards on the basis of excess of powers. The Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit, however, reversed this precedent thus conforming to other Federal Circuits. The decision on vacatur was remanded back to the District Court, which found that the arbitral tribunal had not exceeded its powers. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision confirming that a high hurdle must be surmounted before a court will hold that an arbitral tribunal has exceeded its powers. So long as an arbitral tribunal is even arguably construing or applying the contract—their decision must stand. Written by Alex Wilbraham, solicitor England and Wales, attorney California, independent arbitrator and member of Arbitra International.

The Welsh Government has published guidance on the information required to be included in annual socially responsible procurement reports under section 39 of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 (SPPP(W)A 2023). Contracting authorities that have awarded prescribed contracts during a financial year are required to publish an annual report. The report must include: (1) a summary of the public procurement exercises undertaken during the year that resulted in, or were intended to result in, the award of a prescribed contract; (2) a review of the extent to which all reasonable steps were taken in those exercises to meet the authority’s socially responsible procurement objectives; (3) where applicable, a statement outlining any further steps the authority considers could reasonably be taken in future public procurement exercises to meet those objectives; (4) a summary of the public procurement activities the authority expects to undertake in the following two financial years and (5) information specified in regulation 6 of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/75, including information on the estimated value of contracts awarded to contractors satisfying the conditions listed in that regulation, expressed as percentages.

Ofgem has launched a consultation on the Data Communications Company’s (DCC) Required Revenue for November 2026 to March 2028, marking the first use of a forward-looking ‘ex-ante’ price control framework for Great Britain’s smart metering network. Ofgem proposes allowing DCC revenues of £1.091 billion over the 17-month period, around £70 million lower than DCC’s £1.162 billion request, after reducing allowances for areas including Smart Metering Equipment Technical Specifications  (SMETS1) operational costs, switching service procurement, future system management and licence renewal activities. Ofgem said the new framework is intended to improve transparency, cost predictability and value for money by assessing costs before they are incurred, while continuing to support reliable smart metering services. The consultation also proposes ringfenced budgets for major programmes, including long-range radio network upgrades, Data Service Provider 2.0 (DSP2) system delivery, post-quantum cryptography and future 4G connectivity, alongside automatic revenue adjustment mechanisms for costs outside DCC’s direct control, such as inflation-linked contracts and volume-driven communications hub costs. Ofgem stated that DCC had generally justified most of its proposed spending but identified weaknesses in forecasting, internal cost evidence and some change programmes, and said it expects stronger cost control, improved contract management and reduced reliance on consultants under the new regime. The consultation closes on 14 July 2026.

Immigration analysis: The Immigration (Restrictions on Employment and Residential Accommodation) (Prescribed Requirements and Codes of Practice) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/700) amend the Immigration (Restrictions on Employment) Order 2007 (SI 2007/3290) and two other instruments. The most significant change for employers and other businesses is the insertion of new art 5B to the Order, which sets out the prescribed right to work checking requirements for certain engagements outside a traditional contract of employment, ie contracting chains, individual sub-contractors and online matching services, giving effect to aspects of section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. The instrument also replaces the existing IDVT framework with a requirement to use a registered Digital Verification Service Provider, expands the documents that can be checked digitally, introduces the use of facial recognition checks by registered providers, and brings updated statutory codes of practice into force on 1 October 2026. The new draft Code of Practice on preventing illegal working: Right to Work Scheme for employers (the ‘draft Code’) accompanies the Regulations and comes into force on the same date. It provides important practical guidance on the new requirements, including detailed provisions on scope, digital and manual checking methods, and the approach to enforcement of the extended liability provisions. Further guidance will be published in due course, in the Employer’s guide to right to work checks. This analysis looks in detail at the changes.

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) a webinar from Lexis+ UK Employment team member Cathy Hoar, and Stephen Ratcliffe of Baker & McKenzie looking at some of the most significant changes contained in the Employment Rights Bill, (2) analysis by Victoria Hordern of Taylor Wessing LLP of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, (3) a successful paternity leave sex discrimination employment tribunal claim, (4) notice that all employment tribunal online services (affecting submission of ET1s, ET3s and digital applications) will be temporarily unavailable between 18.00 and 23.00 on Monday 16 December 2024 due to a planned upgrade, (5) our new Practice Note providing a destination table showing how the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (ET Rules 2024), in force from 6 January 2025, correspond to the ET Rules 2013 which they replace, (6) our new Precedent comprising a set of clauses that may be inserted by a customer into a contract with a supplier to help the customer (as an employer) comply with its duty to prevent sexual harassment under section 40A of the Equality Act 2010, (7) dates for your diary, and (8) other news items of interest to employment practitioners.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The fourth defendant, Lancashire County Council, applied for an order pursuant to CPR 11(1)(b) and CPR 11(6))b) to set aside service of the claim form against it. Alternatively, the fourth defendant sought an order striking out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) (‘Application’). The Application was made on the basis that the court should decline its jurisdiction to entertain the claim because, the fourth defendant contended, it had been brought in breach of a contractual requirement that all disputes be first determined by adjudication. The court recognised that adjudication was a mandatory requirement under the contract but exercised its discretion and declined the Application. In refusing either to strike out or stay the claim, the court considered that it would be disproportionate to strike out the claim and that, due to the multi-party nature of the dispute, a stay would not resolve all the issues in the claim. The court considered that, if the claim against the fourth defendant was stayed, the claim against the other three parties would proceed in the meantime, and this could give rise to procedural complications. Written by Anna Gilbert, counsel, Hausfeld & Co LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision confirms that the place where professional services (in this case advice and contract drafting by a solicitor) are actually carried out is not necessarily the place of performance for the purpose of determining jurisdiction under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982), Sch 4, para 3(a). Rather a broader analysis of the ‘place of performance’ is required, which considers the purpose of the performance. In this case, the connections of the obligation to advise and draft agreements were so tied to England that the place of performance of the obligation was in England. In determining jurisdiction under para 3(a), the court will look at the jurisprudence on Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention 1968. The court deprecated reliance on the cases decided on Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (or its equivalents in Brussels Recast and the Lugano Convention), which had not been incorporated into the CJJA 1982, Sch 4. Written by Jonathan Schaffer-Goddard, barrister at 4 Pump Court.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published a speech by its Acting Executive Director for Consumer Protection, Emma Cochrane, outlining the CMA’s progress and future priorities under the consumer protection provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024). The speech reflects on the first ten months of the regime, which came into force in April 2025. Cochrane describes the DMCCA 2024 as marking a ‘genuine shift’ in UK consumer enforcement, noting that, for the first time, the CMA can decide whether consumer protection laws have been infringed, rather than having to litigate through the courts, and can issue penalties directly where breaches are found. She says the CMA’s approach to exercising these powers is guided by its ‘4Ps’ principles: pace, predictability, proportionality and process. She also highlights the CMA’s publication of updated guidance and engagement with businesses to support compliance under the new regime, and points to the new banned practices relating to fake reviews introduced by the DMCCA 2024. Looking ahead, she says further enforcement action can be expected, particularly in areas of essential household spend and in relation to fake reviews, unfair contract terms and drip pricing where businesses fail to change their behaviour. She concludes that the CMA is beginning to see the deterrent effect of the new regime, with businesses investing in training and reviewing practices, and says the CMA will continue to use its new powers ‘thoughtfully, strategically and effectively’ to protect consumers and support compliant businesses.

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. This Precedent was suitable for use up to and including 31 May 2022. On entering into force of the UK VABEO on 1 June 2022, this Precedent was archived and has been replaced with new Precedent: Distribution agreement—exclusive which is suitable for use with the UK VABEO from 1 June 2022. This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Manufacturer); and 2 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Distributor); each of the Manufacturer and the Distributor being a party and together they are the parties. Background (A) The Manufacturer manufactures [and supplies] the Products. (B) The Distributor has agreed to distribute [and support] the Products on an exclusive basis in the Territory on the terms of this Agreement. The parties agree: 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Agreement: Affiliate • means any entity that directly or indirectly Controls, is Controlled by, or is in under common Control with, another

Dispute Resolution analysis: Two sets of neighbours found themselves in multiple sets of litigation against each other. The litigation arose as a result of excavation works which one set of neighbours intended to carry out in order to build a basement complex. The litigation was compromised by a Tomlin order. The Tomlin order provided that, in the event of a dispute about the level of compensation to be paid because of the works, either party would have ‘a right to appeal…which for all purposes shall be treated as an appeal under [the Party Wall etc. Act 1996]’. After a dispute arose as to the level of compensation to be paid, one set of neighbours appealed to the County Court under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (PWA 1996). On appeal to the High Court, Mrs Justice Foster decided that PWA 1996 did not apply and the parties could not give the court jurisdiction under the PWA 1996 by agreement. Nevertheless, the parties could still bring their dispute to court because the terms of a Tomlin order constitute a contract, therefore the parties can have recourse to the county court under a contractual claim. Written by Alexander Campbell, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has published the first part of its response to consultation on refinements for Contracts for Difference Allocation Round 8, announcing amendments to the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) Regulations 2014, SI 2014/2011. The response addresses the legislative proposals set out in Chapter 5 of the December 2025 consultation, which focused on improving scheme efficiency and administrative robustness, and confirms that the National Energy System Operator (NESO) will be able to correct certain administrative errors made during the assessment of CfD applications, including by issuing new or amended non‑qualification determination notices and applying a pause to the allocation process for affected projects only in order to accommodate additional Tier 1 appeals. DESNZ also confirms that the SI 2014/2014 will be amended to allow NESO, in specified circumstances, to consider new documentary evidence or information at the Tier 1 review stage to rectify non‑material errors or omissions, with the scope of acceptable evidence and applicable error types to be set out in the Contract Allocation Framework (CAF), alongside further administrative rules.