There has come into effect the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ( EXCLUSION OF NON_COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS ) ( ENGLAND ) ORDER 2026, S.I.2026/94. The Order enables best value authorities and parish councils in England, covered by SECTION 17 of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1988, to reserve procurements below PROCUREMENT ACT 2023 THRESHOLDS to local or certain UK based suppliers. The reservation must be transparent, clearly notified, proportionate, and recorded with a strong audit trail. There is GUIDANCE in relation to the interaction of LOCALLY BASED RESERVATIONS with the Procurement Act and regulations. The flexibility is subject to review by the PROCUREMENT REVIEW UNIT.

The Supreme Court in PROVIDENT BUILDING SERVICES LTD v HEXAGON HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD ( 2026 ) UKSC 1 has held that the contractor under a CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT which incorporates the JCT Design and Build Contract ( 2016  edition ) cannot terminate its employment under clause 8.9.4 when a right to give the termination notice referred to in clause 8.9.3 has never accrued. The established approach to CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION, based on the objective intentions of the contracting parties in the relevant context, applies to the interpretation of an industry wide standard form of contract.

In C ( Children : Premature Determination ) ( 2025 ) EWCA Civ 1481 the Court of Appeal observed that predetermination, or apparent predetermination, arises where a decision-maker reaches, or appears to reach, a final conclusion before being in possession of all the relevant facts.. The Court says, at paras 6-8, that there is an “ obvious difference “ between disclosure of “ provisional thinking “, for the benefit of the parties, and a “ premature arrival at a settled decision “. The first is “ acceptable “, and may be 2 beneficial “, even “ positively helpful “. The latter is “ inappropriate “ and may well be “ unjust “. This applies in the cases both of fact-finding and of evaluative judgment “. There MUST NOT be a “ premature determination “ that indicates a CLOSED MIND.

The Procurement Act 2023 ( Threshhold Amounts ) ( Amendment ) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/1200, revise financial threshholds for public contracts.

A party cannot be held to have affirmed a contract when they did not know that the contract entitled them to terminate it : URE Energy Ltd v Notting Hill Genesis ( 2025 ) EWCA Civ 1407.

R ( NAHT and others ) v OFSTED ( 2025 ) EWHC 2891 ( Admin) is concerned with whether OFSTEDfailed to conduct a legally sufficient Consultation in relation to a renewed inspection framework and its alleged serious negative effects. Saini J sets out the relevant legal principles at para 72. At para 73 he said in relation to the 1^st (formative stage ) and 4^th (conscientious consideration ) Gunning requirements for a fair and open-minded consultation :-

“ As helpfully explaned in JUDICIAL REVIEW : SUPPERSTONE< GOUDIE & WALKER ( 7^th edn, 2024 ) at 10.35, the first and fourth GUNNING requirements are interrelated. In practical terms, there must be some specific proposal on which to consult, otherwise there would be no focus for the representations from the consultees. This presupposes that the public body will have formed at least a tentative view as to what it wants to do. Accordingly a public body may properly consult upon a PREFERRED OPTION. But there is a red line : it must not have closed its mind to any changes, otherwise there could be no scope genuinely to consider the representations made.”

The approach to be taken by the Court when deciding whether or not to lift an automatic suspension on entering into a procured and regulated contact is set out by Eyre J at paras 27-36 inc in INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE UK LTD v SoS for DEFENCE (2025) EWHC 2634 ( TCC ).

In KULKARNI v GWENT HOLDINGS ( 2025 ) EWCA Civ 1206 the Court of Appeal reaffirms that , when determining whether a breach of contract is “ capable of remedy “, within the meaning of a contractual provision or a comparable statutory one, a practical rather than a technical approach is to be adopted, in which common law rules concerning repudiation have no place. Remediability means putting matters right for the future. The existence of enduring prejudice could be important, but the motive for or wilfulness of a breach would not usually matter.

The mere fact that a decision-maker ( Full Council ) was provided with the material necessary to make a decision ( to adopt a council tax reduction scheme for working aged people ) and might have made the same decision in any event , could not save the decision from a finding of unlawfulness if it was in fact taken by someone else ( the Executive ). So held in R ( LL ) v TRAFFORD MBC ( 2025 ) EWHC 2380 ( Admin ).

See R ( Wild Justice ) v Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority ( 2025 ) EWHC 2249 ( Admin ) in relation to background papers for a Council Report : at para 58 for what constitute background papers; at paras 59-61 on whether non-publication is unlawful; and at para 62 on whether there is a breach of procedural fairness.