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—30 January 2025

This week's edition of Public Law Weekly highlights include the Cabinet Office's final preparations for the Procurement Act 2023, which comes fully into force on 24 February 2025, and the Prime Minister’s announcement of reforms to the judicial review process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. Additionally, this edition features the Tickle case in which Court of Appeal set aside the order that anonymised the judges in historic family proceedings relating to Sara Sharif, as well as the Department for Business and Trade’s (DBT) publication of its Assimilated Law Parliamentary Report for June to December 2024. The highlights also include enhanced coverage of the Supreme Court judgment in The Father v Worcestershire CC and expert analysis of the Court of Appeal's decision in Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock and HD v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police, a conjoined appeal examining whether the police can have a duty to investigate pursuant to the article 3 Convention right before the claimant has suffered ill-treatment, plus selected Brexit statutory instruments (SIs) and post-Brexit transition guidance.

State aid—weekly round-up 29 January 2025

A round-up of key developments on State aid, first reported by the Lexis+ Competition team. This update covers the period 22–28 January 2025.

Requirement for specific contracts in careworker DCoS applications was unlawful (R (Hartford Care Group) v SSHD)

Immigration analysis: The King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) ruled that the Home Office's requirement for specific contracts with guaranteed hours in care worker Defined Certificate of Sponsorship (DCoS) applications was unlawful. The court found this requirement irrational and a breach of the Tameside duty of inquiry. This decision highlights recent examples of the Home Office’s imposing additional requirements beyond published Rules and guidance in work immigration cases where a ‘genuine vacancy’ requirement is being looked at (and this aspect was not held to be unlawful in these circumstances). Also, while quashing the refusal of 70 DCoS applications, the court declined to declare that reconsidered applications should be treated under previous Immigration Rules.

No police duty to protect from third party harm—applying the Tindall principles (Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock, HD and others v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In this conjoined appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether the police held a duty of care to protect Ms Woodcock and CJ from harm caused by a third party; and whether the police’s investigative duty, pursuant to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, can arise before the claimant has suffered ill treatment at the hands of a third party. This decision represents the first occasion upon which the Court of Appeal has been asked to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and has provided some important points of practical application to practitioners in this area. Written by Jennie Oborne, barrister at Deka Chambers.