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.”

In PEVENSEY COASTAL DEFENCE LTD v ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ( 2024 ) EWHC 1435 ( TCC ) it is held that, on the proper construction of a 25 year PFI agreement, for the provision of services, for the delivery of sea defences, the service provider could, retrospectively, make a claim for ADDITIONAL COST that it had incurred, as a result of a material increase in the FREQUENCY OF STORM EVENTS in the second decade of the PFI agreement, compared with its first decade. The ability to budget for a dynamic situation was a central element of the PFI agreement.

In LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL v BROOKHOUSE GROUP LTD (2024) EWCA Civ 717 the Court of Appeal holds that the 30 day time limit under Regulation 95(3) of the Public Contracts Regulations, for seeking a Declaration of Ineffectiveness under Regulation 99, arising from an interested “economic operator” being given the “relevant reasons” it had been unsuccessful, did NOT apply where the Declaration was sought on the ground that NO CONTRACT NOTICE HAD BEEN PUBLISHED, despite one having been required.  In such a case, the limitation period was SIX MONTHS from the contract being entered into, unless the “contracting authority” issued a CONTRACT AWARD NOTICE. In that case the limitation period was 30 days, from when the contract was published.

Cabinet Office Guidance relates to ( 1) contractual modifications, (2) time limits, and ( 3 ) the process for assessment of tenders, under the Procurement Act 2023.