Public sector clause bank

This subtopic is aimed at public sector lawyers dealing with contract matters and contains a selection of guidance and Precedents, including boilerplate and key clauses common to many contracts which govern the general operation of the agreement and the respective rights of the parties. Subjects covered include the use of defined terms, the role of boilerplate and an introduction to the rules of jurisdiction.

The selected guidance in this subtopic is intended to provide an overview of some of the key terms relevant for drafting contracts and frameworks. Further Precedents and guidance are available from Lexis+® UK Commercial and Dispute Resolution.

Use of defined terms

The purpose of defining terms in an agreement is to avoid:

•
ambiguity, by giving specific meanings to words and setting out their scope, which may differ from their ordinary meaning
•
repetition, particularly of long or complex phrases, so that the agreement is more concise and easier to read

Care should be taken when drafting individual terms and definitions. Contract drafters should ensure that the inclusion of each term and scope of each definition is appropriate in the context of both

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 Public Law News

Public Law weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This week's edition of Public Law weekly highlights includes the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers on the legal definition of the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ under the Equality Act 2010. Also in this edition, a rare Saturday recall of Parliament for an emergency debate on the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill, new guidance on UK1 pipeline notices under the Procurement Act 2023, an update to Procurement Policy Note 009: Tackling modern slavery in government supply chains extending its scope to NHS trusts, closure of the consultation on reforms to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, takeaways from the ICO’s final anonymisation guidance, plus a request for feedback on updates to the Magenta Book. Case updates include a further Supreme Court ruling in Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust on reasonable duration of anonymity injunctions and a number of judicial review and freedom of information cases, including a case considering the interpretation of 'grossly offensive' in the context of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This edition features further updates on equality and human rights, constitutional and administrative law, judicial review, information law, public procurement, subsidy control and State aid.

The Supreme Court holds that anonymity for clinicians in withdrawal of treatment cases involving children should normally be of limited duration (Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust)

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the hospitals’ appeals in these cases concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for children. There was no basis on which anonymity injunctions in relation to clinicians could be continued indefinitely. If anonymity is sought in such cases beyond a cooling-off period following the child’s death or withdrawal of treatment, the application should be made by the clinicians concerned. Such applications should be supported by specific evidence and the need for any restriction of freedom of expression must be established convincingly. Hannah Markham KC and Madeleine Whelan of 36 Family, Louise Sivey and Eloise Carey of Bates Wells, and Professor Carmen Draghici of the University of London comment on the judgment.

State aid—weekly round-up 16 April 2025

A round-up of key developments on State aid, first reported by the Lexis+ Competition team. This update covers the period 9–15 April 2025.

Supreme Court holds that EqA 2010 terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ refer to biological sex (For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers)

The UK Supreme Court has unanimously held that the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ’sex' in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) refer to biological sex rather than ’certificated sex'. the court held that individuals with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRC) do not fall within their acquired gender's definition under EqA 2010. The judgment clarifies that trans people remain protected from discrimination through gender reassignment provisions and can claim sex discrimination if perceived as their acquired gender. The court determined a biological interpretation was necessary for coherent application of EqA 2010 provisions across areas including single-sex spaces, sports participation and pregnancy rights. Dr Michael Foran and Joanne Moseley comment on the implications of the judgment.