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.

The Charity Commission has updated Guidance for Council Members and Officers when their Council is Trustee of a Charity. The Commission is seeing a “ significant number ‘ of cases where local authorities have failed to comply with their legal responsibilities a charity trustees. Common problems include changing the use or status of charitable land, or disposing of it, in a way that is not compatible with its charitable purpose.

The Guidance states that (1) it is important that authorities understand which of the assets they manage or own are charitable, and (2) they should then ensure that they are familiar with the different legal requirements and legal restrictions on actions in relation to assets that are charitable rather than simply owned.

The Guidance (1) outlines what is expected in the role of trustee, (2) gives advice on how to handle issues such as managing CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, (3) explains requirements in relation to filing Accounts, and (4) sets out rules around disposing of CHARITY LAND.

The Cabinet Office has published Guidance under the Procurement Act 2023 on contract terminations; procurement oversight; contract award notices; standstills; assessment summaries; remedies; debarment; exclusions; and procurement termination notices.

WALK SAFE SECURITY SERVICES LTD v LEWISHAM LBC ( 2024) EWHC 1787 ( Admin) raises a pure question of law whether it is lawful for a licensing hearing before a local authority licensing committee to be held remotely. Chamberlain J holds that it is lawful, pursuant to the Licensing Act 2003 and the Licensing Act ( Hearings ) Regulations 2005. He observes that the point is of wide significance, because many local authorities conduct all or most licensing hearings remotely.

He said, at para 43, that there were 5 points relevant to interpretation that taken together favour a construction according to which remote hearings are permissible in principle. First, the term “ hearing” can be applied to both in person hearings and remote hearings. Second, the legislative context includes reference to the “ place “ at which the hearing takes place, and an online platform can properly be described as a “ place “. Third, there are “ important differences “between licensing hearings and local authority meetings. Fourth, the Regulations do not prohibit them and confer maximum procedural flexibility on licensing committees. Fifth, there is nothing in the Strasbourg Court jurisprudence to suggest that remote hearings “necessarily” gives rise to a violation of any ECHR procedural rights, albeit ( para 48 ) “ they may do so in particular cases, in which case a licensing authority would be obliged to consider alternative arrangements.”