Public sector contract disputes

This subtopic is aimed at public sector lawyers dealing with contract matters and considers some of the key issues that parties may encounter in relation to contract interpretation and disputes, including:

•
contract interpretation
•
representations and misrepresentation
•
remedies for breach
•
damages in tort
•
limitation of liability
•
dispute resolution clauses

The guidance in this subtopic is intended to provide an overview of the main commercial issues relevant to contractual disputes, remedies and liability. Further detailed guidance on breach of contract and dispute resolution methods is available from Lexis+® UK Commercial and Dispute Resolution.

Contract interpretation

Disputes about contracts are inevitable. No matter the care and effort made in drafting a contract, the imperfect and imprecise nature of language means there will always be room for differences of opinion on interpretation. Also, despite the position of the parties at the start of any relationship, there may be a change in their views over time, therefore the parties must consider the extent to which they will address the real possibility of disputes arising out of or in connection with their contracts.

Many contractual disputes

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Local Government News

DHSC publishes updated guardianship forms for Mental Health Act implementation

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) released a set of guardianship forms (G1 to G10) for use under the Mental Health Act 1983. These forms are designed for the process of placing individuals under guardianship or managing patients subject to guardianship orders in England. The forms comply with the Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1184, and cover various aspects of guardianship, including applications, medical recommendations, transfers and renewals.

Local Government weekly highlights—28 November 2024

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes coverage of the decisions in RHH Ltd v OG Ltd, which involved a judicial determination in a procurement dispute; EM v Havering Part LBC, in which Havering Council's housing decision was held to be unlawful; Howe v Brent LBC, where the Court of Appeal clarified qualification for the right to buy; A Local Authority v The child C where the Family Court made a best interest decision concerning the withdrawal of care proceedings; BC v Mother, where the court upheld care orders and restrictions; AC v SF, where the court balanced family contact and well-being in a best interest decision; Ibrahim v NMC, where the High Court overturned the panel's decision on misconduct and insight; ACC Ltd v Ealing LBC, where the Tribunal overturned Ealing Council's refusal of a dog day care licence. This weekly highlights also includes further updates on Public procurement, Social housing, Children’s social care, governance, Healthcare, Planning, and Licencing.

Crown bodies—presence of implied powers to adopt and revoke Welsh language scheme did not negate failure to consult on scheme changes where a ‘legitimate expectation’ relating to consultation existed (R (on the application of the Welsh Language Commissioner) v National Savings and Investments)

Public Law analysis: A decision by National Saving and Investments, a Crown body, to revoke its Welsh language scheme was held to be unlawful on a judicial review brought by the Welsh Language Commissioner. Although the power implied into the Welsh Language Act 1993 (WLA 1993) for a Crown body to adopt such a scheme also carried with it an implied power for that body to withdraw or revoke the scheme as a matter of statutory interpretation, a failure to consult the Commissioner contravened the Commissioner’s legitimate procedural expectation that she would be consulted in respect of any proposed change. Written by Martin Jones, Head of Regulatory at Hugh James.

MOJ launches Call for Evidence on costs protection in discrimination claims

The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has initiated a Call for Evidence seeking stakeholder input on the current arrangements for bringing discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 in civil courts in England and Wales. Opening on 27 November 2024 and closing on 19 February 2025, this consultation aims to gather data and evidence to determine whether costs protection should be extended to discrimination claims. The MOJ is exploring various models of costs protection and alternative dispute resolution options, with a focus on civil court cases rather than tribunal proceedings. While specific questions relate to disability claims, the government is considering impacts on all protected characteristics.

View Local Government by content type :

News