In R (GRANTCHESTER PARISH COUNCIL) v GREATER CAMBRIDGE PARTNERSHIP and CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL and others (2025) EWHC 923 (Admin) Lieven J states, at para 46, that the parameters of what statements can give rise to a legitimate expectation and in what circumstances are complex, with a large number of authorities on various different factual situations. She observes: “When considering these cases it is important to have regard to the precise factual legal context in which many of the judicial pronouncements were made”. At para 47, she identifies 3 key stages: (1) Was there a clear and unambiguous commitment? (2) Was it reasonable and legitimate for the promisee to rely upon it against the public authority? (3) Would it be inappropriate to allow the promisee to enforce the commitment? At para 49 she states that the burden of establishing a commitment which is clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification rests on the person asserting it; at para 50 that a distinction is drawn between what will be required in cases of substantive legitimate expectation rather than procedural expectation; and at para 56 that if the promise would interfere with the public authority’s statutory duty it cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation.

In R (AB) v BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL and ES and JX v DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL (2025) EWCC 1 a judicial review challenge failed to the entry by the Councils into “Safety Valve Agreements” with the Department of Education in relation to deficits in the Dedicated Schools Grant pursuant to Section 14 of the Education Act 2002.  The allegations included breach of the duty to consult under Section 27(3) of the Children and Families Act 2014 and of the PSED.  Linden J accepted (para 18) that there was a “powerful reason” for the Councils to take steps to address their deficits at the times when they decided to participate in the Safety Valve Programme and to enter into their SVA.

Read more »

The purpose of the qualified exemption from disclosure in Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs, is to protect, subject to the public interest balancing test, the free and frank provision of advice and the effective conduct of public affairs : GARRARD v ICO ( 2025 ) UK FTT 00343 ( GRC ) at para 128. However, the exemption was held not to apply.

The automatic suspension of contracts in procurement proceedings was lifted in MILLBROOK HEALTHCARE LTD v DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL ( 2025 ) EWHC 744 ( TCC ). Damages were an adequate remedy for the Claimant. This was held to be so even if the Council’s alleged breach was not sufficiently serious to result in damages.

Consideration has been given by the Supreme Court in R (SPITALFIELDS HISTORIC BUILDING TRUST) v TOWER HAMLETS LBC (2025) UKSC 11 to a provision in the Council’s statutory Constitution, in the form of Standing Orders, with Procedure Rules, adopted by it pursuant to Section 106 of and paragraph 42 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972, which restricted voting by Committee Members at the final Meeting to decide a planning application to those who had been present at the Meeting or Meetings at which the application had been considered. This was, from para 41, per Lord Sales, held to be lawful. It was not contrary to paragraph 39 of Schedule 12. The statutory provisions should be read according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used. The right of a Councillor to vote could not be regarded as absolute or fundamental in the sense proposed by the appellant. A Councillor might be disqualified from voting in a particular case by statute or by common law rules, such as a conflict of interest, or appearance of bias. Read more »

Changes made by the Procurement Act 2023, in force from 24 February 2025, include ( 1 ) a new MANDATORY EXCLUSION ground for participating in a cartel, ( 2 ) a DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION ground for potential competition infringements, and ( 3 ) the introduction of a CENTRAL DEBARMENT Register. Suppliers who breach competition law risk ( i) exclusion from individual public procurements and ( ii ) being added to the Central Debarment Register, resulting in EXCLUSION FROM ALL CONTRACTS subject to public procurement, for 5 years. The COMPETITION AND MARKETS AUTHORITY has, on 26 February 2025, published a INFORMATION NOTE on “Exclusion and Debarment on Competition Grounds.”

On 24 February 2025 the Cabinet Office has issued GUIDANCE on the role of the Procurement Review Unit (PRU).  The PRU will have responsibility for “oversight” of the new regime under the Procurement Act 2023. Its initial aim will be to ensure that the changes introduced by the Act are “embedded within contracting authorities”. The PRU will investigate (1) contracting authorities, to ensure compliance with  the Act and (2) suppliers, for possible addition to the Debarment List.  Private utilities and some NHS personal care services are, however, out of scope of the PRU. The Guidance states that the PRU is designed to deliver the following benefits:-

Read more »

A Welsh Government publication provides Guidance on Frameworks under the PROCUREMENT ACT 2023, both framework agreements and the new “ open frameworks “, and on call-off contracts.

The Procurement Act 2023 (Consequential and other Amendments) Regulations 2025, S.I. 2025/163, make substantive amendments to the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) and the Procurement Regulations 2024 (PR 2024), as well as consequential amendments arising from the coming into force of the PA 2023.  They: update certain specified threshold amounts; reflect additions and amendments to the UK’s international obligations in respect of procurement; make consequential amendments to primary legislation rendered necessary by the coming into force of the PA 2023; make amendments to the PR 2024 that address a small number of matters for which provision was not made in those Regulations; contain consequential amendments to secondary legislation and assimilated law which are rendered necessary by the coming into force of the PA 2023; make repeals and revocations rendered necessary by the coming into force of the PA 2023; and contain transitional provisions.

A collection of updated Cabinet Office Procurement Policy Notes include: PPN 001: Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprises (VCSE) procurement spend targets; PPN 002: Taking account of social value in the award of contracts; PPN 003: the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012; PPN 004: Open Book Contract Management; PPN 005: Reserving below threshold procurements; PPN 006: Taking account of Carbon Reduction Plans in the procurement of major government contracts; PPN 007: Contracts with Russia and Belarus; PPN 008: Armed Forces Covenant; PPN 009: Tackling modern slavery in government supply chains; PPN 010: Procuring steel in government contracts; PPN 011: The Commercial Playbooks; PPN 012: Security Classifications Policy; PPN 013: Using standard contracts; PPN 015: How to take account of a supplier’s approach to payment in the procurement of major contract; PPN 016: Carbon Reduction Contract Schedule; PPN 017: Improving transparency of AI use in procurement; and PPN 018: How to take account of a supplier’s approach to payment in the procurement of major contracts.

In WORKING ON WELLBEING LTD v SoS (2025) EWCA Civ 127 Coulson LJ (with whom Frazer and Zacaroli LJJ agree) summarises the relevant principles as follows:-

“82.     I consider that the authorities demonstrate that there are three stages to consider when addressing whether or not, in the particular circumstances of any given case, a contracting authority has the discretion to seek clarification, when that discretion becomes a duty, and what the permissible limits are to any response to a request for clarification.

Stage One

83. The first stage arises only where the error or ambiguity is obvious to the contracting authority and is material to the outcome of the competition. That will be rare, which explains why any duty to seek clarification will only arise in exceptional cases … the only question is whether the error or ambiguity was obvious to the contracting authority: it is not a question of the error or ambiguity being “objectively verifiable”.
84. All of the cases stress that the error of ambiguity must be “serious” and “manifest”… The error or ambiguity must also be “material” or “significant”: it must be relevant to the “outcome” of the tender process… If the error or ambiguity is immaterial or irrelevant to the final outcome of the competition, no further action is necessary.

Read more »