The certificate issued by the Engineer under a FIDIC contract (by the Employer in the Silver Book) which certifies that the Works (or a Section) have been completed to the extent required under the contract and the date that this was achieved (similar to a certificate of practical completion in JCT contracts).

Wrongful dismissal is dismissal in breach of contract. Someone wrongfully dismissed may claim compensation for all financial and other benefits they would have received had they been dismissed in compliance with the contract (ie remained employed until the end of (i) their notice period, or (ii) the contract's fixed term).

The Sale of Goods Act 1979, s 14(2) implies a term into a sale contract (in the course of a business) that the goods are of satisfactory quality. This includes fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) an EAT decision under the pre-IP completion day Brussels Regulation on the employment tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear claims brought by a British citizen employed by a company domiciled in Georgia, USA under an employment contract governed by the law of that State, (2) the launch by the Low Pay Commission (LPC) of a consultation on 2026 national minimum wage (NMW) and national living wage (NLW) rates, (3) an update to the HMRC Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool, (4) a Court of Appeal decision to strike out whistleblowing detriment claims against external HR consultants, (5) confirmation from the Court of Appeal that, in the context of an indirect age discrimination claim relating to changes made by a parent company to the rules of a long term incentive plan (LTIP), the parent company was not the agent of the subsidiary employer, (6) a High Court decision that the alleged vicarious liability of a transferor employer does not transfer under TUPE, (7) the further extension of the temporary closure of the Alexandra House Manchester employment tribunal office, (8) two new Practice Notes on the duty to provide a written statement of the right to join a trade union and the right for trade unions to access workplaces, both of which are to be introduced under the Employment Rights Bill (ERB) and (9) dates for your diary.

Construction analysis: The Court of Appeal held that a party which had not complied with an adjudicator’s decision was entitled to commence and continue with Part 8 proceedings seeking a declaration challenging the validity of the payment application on which the adjudicator’s decision was based. Such proceedings were not an abuse of process. The court went on to provide guidance as to how such Part 8 proceedings should be managed alongside the enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision, stating that the judge at the Part 8 hearing should have considered the Part 8 through ‘the prism’ of the adjudicator’s decision. On the substantive issue, the Court of Appeal held, allowing the appeal, that the payment application was valid. The two sets of dates in the contract should be understood as providing some flexibility for the application to be valid so long as the second date was met, even if the first date was missed. Written by James Frampton, barrister at Keating Chambers (counsel for the respondent).

Property Disputes Analysis: In Howe v Gossop the High Court had to grapple on appeal with how the doctrine of proprietary estoppel interacts with the provisions of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989). The court dismissed the appeal and, considering the various grounds of appeal from the County Court, held that—(i) where there was a ‘transactional’ case in which proprietary estoppel arose, LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 did not stand in the way of equitable relief, (ii) there was no requirement that a case be ‘exceptional’ before relief would be granted relating to proprietary estoppel where the parties had tried and failed to enter into a binding contract, nor did there necessarily have to be assurances that technicalities would not be relied upon, (iii) if essentially what was sought was to enforce a failed agreement, different considerations would arise, (iv) even if such an agreement were incomplete, relief might still be granted. Written by Andrew Vinson, barrister, at Exchange Chambers.

The report, prepared by the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce's Control Panel and published on 19 March 2026, provides technical, non-binding guidance for courts and legal practitioners on how digital assets are controlled in practice. The Panel was established at the invitation of the Lord Chancellor, following the Law Commission’s recognition that digital assets constitute a distinct ‘third category’ of property. The report emphasises that ‘control’ is a factual, functional concept, centred on the ability to exclude others, use and transfer an asset. It analyses various forms of control, including direct, multi-party, smart contract-based, delegated, and layered control, highlighting that real-world arrangements are often complex and overlapping. The report notes that the absence of a central operator and privacy-enhancing technologies may limit the effectiveness of traditional legal remedies. Overall, it points to a need for the law to develop incrementally in response to evolving technologies, with the courts adopting a flexible, context-specific approach focused on how control is in fact exercised in any given system.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has published UK Clinical Research Delivery programme key performance indicator (KPI) data to March 2026, showing that the average time to set up a commercial interventional clinical trial has decreased from 169 days to 122 days, meeting the Prime Minister's 150-day target set out in the Life Sciences Sector Plan. The data also shows that: (1) 78% of commercial contract clinical trial of investigational medicinal products (CTIMP) studies recruited their first participant within 150 days of applying for regulatory approval, against a 95% target; (2) 99% of Combined Review applications received regulatory approval within the 60-day target, with Research Ethics Committee reviews taking a median of 29 days to reach an outcome in 2025; (3) 82% of open studies met recruitment timelines and targets, exceeding the 80% benchmark and (4) 62% of studies recruited their first participant within 30 days of opening to recruitment, against a 90% target. In addition, average monthly recruitment to clinical studies reached 86,151 participants, with 154 new studies added to the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Delivery Network (RDN) portfolio. The KPIs measure trends in regulatory and study set-up times, research delivery performance and overall clinical research activity volume across the UK.

Arbitration analysis: The London Circuit Commercial Court (LCCC) made a rare finding that it was able to determine whether an arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a dispute under an arbitration agreement, in an application made pursuant to section 32(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (Arbitration Act). The underlying dispute concerned a currency swap agreement between Barclays Bank plc (Barclays) and VEB.RF (VEB), in which Barclays claimed it was lawfully unable to pay a sum that would otherwise be due and owing to VEB under the contract as VEB had been sanctioned. After VEB commenced court proceedings in Russia against Barclays, Barclays obtained an anti-suit injunction (ASI) preventing the dispute from being heard otherwise than by LCIA Arbitration, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement. Barclays later sought to amend the ASI to allow the dispute to be heard in the LCCC, arguing that the arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction because Barclays had exercised its contractual right to require the dispute to be heard by the courts. Written by Tatiana Minaeva, partner, and Ana Margetts, associate, at RPC.

Commercial analysis: Mr Simon Gleeson sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found for Mr Carl, in a case involving the misappropriation of 8 different cars and their proceeds, in different ways, by 13 different defendants. The case also involved a cheque action and competing claims for the repayment of a loan. The court had to untangle a complex procedural and factual history and make findings of deceit, conversion, unlawful act conspiracy, and knowing receipt. The court also had to make findings relating to the relationship between the parties in contract, partnership and in relation to authority and agency. The court found that whereas there was no relationship of agency between Mr Carl and the principal defendants, the relevant defendants owed a fiduciary duty and duties under an agreement of bailment which were breached. Moreover, the defendants acted in numerous counts of conspiracy to deceive and conspiracy to convert the sale of the cars causing loss to Mr Carl. Written by Meera Solanki, associate at Trowers & Hamlins.

Ofgem has published a decision, outlining its conclusions on the Data Communications Company (DCC)'s Allowed Revenue determination process as part of its review of the DCC's regulatory framework ahead of the Smart Meter Communication Licence's expiry in September 2027. Alongside this, Ofgem has launched two consultations. The first consultation proposes modifications to the Smart Meter Communication Licence, focusing on three key areas: (1) giving effect to its conclusions on the implementation of the ex-ante process for determining DCC's Allowed Revenue; (2) adjusting reporting requirement dates, such as the Price Control submission, to align with the Transfer Date; and (3) amending the mechanisms for both the Baseline Margin Adjustment and External Contract Gain Share. A few housekeeping changes are also proposed. The second consultation seeks views on two draft documents: the Terms of Reference for the DCC's Customer Challenge Group and the Business Plan Guidance, both intended to support the DCC in preparing for its first ex-ante cost control cycle. Both consultations close on 6 June 2025.

The Cabinet Office has added two new Procurement Policy Notes (PPNs) to the suite of PPNs republished in conjunction with the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) go-live—PPN 020: Guidance on data protection legislation and PPN 021: Payment Spot Checks in Public Sub-Contracts. PPN 020: Guidance on data protection legislation provides updated guidance on relevant data protection requirements under the UK GDPR and the UK International Data Transfer Agreement (IDTA) governing the export of personal data from the UK. PPN 020 applies with immediate effect. It replaces PPN 03/22 which contained streamlined guidance and updated model clauses to take account of the UK’s exit from the EU. It also includes guidance on international transfers of personal data. PPN 020 does not constitute a change in policy, but in-scope organisations should circulate and adhere to the guidance and use the updated model clauses at Annex A for new contracts. PPN 021: Payment Spot Checks in Public Sub-Contracts provides guidance and templates for contracting authorities to spot check public contract supply chains to ensure suppliers meet the payment terms set out in PA 2023. PPN 021 includes additional guidance on how in-scope organisations should conduct spot checks to ensure the correct payment terms are being included and adhered to by suppliers, plus model terms at Annex A which support spot checks being carried out. PPN 021 applies from 1 October 2025. Both PPNs apply to all central government departments, their executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies.