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 »

A regulatory context does not call for any test for apparent bias to be applied different from that in PORTER v MAGILL and LOCABAIL v BAYFIELD. So held in R ( CYGNET HEALTH ) v CARE QUALITY COMMISSION (2025) EWHC 1 ( Admin ).

The law and principles applicable to termination of a contract for repudiatory breach do apply to leases. So held in RAMSBURY PROPERTIES LTD v OCEAN VIEW CONSTRUCTION LTD (2024) UKPC 40, at para 42. However (para 43) itu may be rare in the case of a lease, especially where the lease is long-term, for the breach to be sufficiently serious to be repudiatory. This is because a lease confers a proprietary interest in land and exclusive possession.

In R (Cobalt Data Centre) v HMRC (2024) UKSC 40, concerned with a building contract relating to an Enterprise Zone, the Supreme Court considers, at paras 125-156 inc, how to determine whether a contractual change takes effect as a variation to, or replacement of, an existing contract. That is held to turn generally on the parties’ objectively ascertained intention.

In NATIONAL UNION OF RAIL MARITIME AND TRANSPORT WORKERS v TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE (2024) UKSC 37 the Supreme Court considers the nature of rectification. The basic role of rectification is not to correct mistakes in transactions. It is to correct mistakes in recording transactions. It is not confined to documents of particular types. It may be refused if granting it would unfairly prejudice third party rights.

A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Consultation Document, published on 24 October 2024, seeks views on introducing REMOTE ATTENDANCE and PROXY VOTING in certain circumstances at formal local authority and other meetings in England. The Consultation Period is until 12 December 2024.

In URE ENERGY LTD v NOTTING HILL GENESIS (2024) EWHC 2537 ( Comm ) an energy company was held not to have waived its right to terminate an electricity supply contract even though it had continued to perform its contractual obligations for six months after a contractually specified termination event. Although the company’s controlling mind knew that the contract contained a termination clause , he did not appreciate, and could not be expected to have appreciated, that it gave the company a right to terminate in the circumstances which transpired. The Court applied the principles on waiver. Where a party became entitled to terminate a contract it had to elect whether to exercise that right or not . To make an election, it had to be aware of its right to terminate and the facts giving rise to that right. If, having the requisite knowledge, it acted in a manner that was consistent with only one of the two courses, it would be held to have elected accordingly.

The Welsh Government has on 30 September 2024 provided GUIDANCE on the PROCUREMENT ACT 2023 on (i) assessment summaries (ii) conditions of participation, and (iii) terminations of contracts.

A postponed date for the commencement of the PROCUREMENT ACT 2023 is to be set for 24 February 2025.

The Welsh Government has published Guidance on the Procurement Act 2023, the Social Partnership and Public Procurement ( Wales ) Act 2023, and the Health Services Procurement ( Wales ) Act 2024.