Outsourcing agreements

Outsourcing is an arrangement under which an organisation contracts with a service provider to perform services that the organisation currently performs in-house or which are performed by an existing third party supplier. The outsourcing provider will instead provide those services using their own personnel and, often, facilities. This subtopic contains precedent outsourcing agreements, clauses, checklists and practical guidance on all key issues likely to be encountered during drafting and negotiation.

The outsourcing topic is divided into four subtopics, each covering a specific phase of an outsourcing transaction as follows:

•
Preliminary issues—issues for consideration in the early stages of a transaction, from initial planning through to bidder selection. See Preliminary issues in outsourcing—overview
•
Outsourcing agreements—precedents and detailed guidance on the key issues to consider when drafting and negotiating an outsourcing agreement (see below)
•
Contract management in outsourcing—issues arising after the date of signature including governance, change and disputes. See Contract management in outsourcing—overview
•
Outsourcing by type and sector—specific guidance on certain types of transaction including public sector, financial services and international. See Outsourcing by type and sector—overview

The Outsourcing transaction toolkit is a tool

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 TMT News

MoJ announces new offences to combat sexually explicit 'deepfakes'

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has unveiled plans to introduce new criminal offences targeting the creation and sharing of sexually explicit 'deepfakes', as well as the non-consensual taking of intimate images. The proposed legislation, to be included in the forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill, will carry a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment. These measures expand upon existing offences and implement recommendations from the Law Commission. The government has also designated sharing intimate image offences as priority offences under the Online Safety Act, compelling platforms to remove such content or face regulatory action. These reforms aim to address the growing issue of intimate image abuse, particularly affecting women and girls and form part of the government's broader strategy to combat online harassment and protect victims.

Assessing serious harm and special damages in slander post-Blake (Oliver v Duffy)

TMT analysis: This case involved a slander claim based on a statement made after a heated exchange between two locals at a pub, in which it was alleged the Claimant was a paedophile. Although the single meaning of the statement was considered defamatory at common law, the claim was dismissed on the basis that the claimant could not meet the thresholds for serious harm and special damages. This case explores the elements of slander and libel, and provides timely guidance for claimants seeking to establish, and defendants hoping to defend, a claim in slander following the Court of Appeal and High Court's decisions in Blake v Fox. Written by Joanna Lonergan, trainee in Reputation Protection and Crisis Management at Mishcon de Reya LLP.

iQIYI sues Chinese AI startup MiniMax for copyright infringement in landmark case

MLex: Chinese video-streaming platform iQIYI has initiated legal action in a local court against domestic AI startup MiniMax for copyright infringement related to AI model training and content generation, MLex has learned.

Court of Appeal upholds strike out of representative claim for misuse of private information (Prismall v Google UK Ltd and another company)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and struck out the claim. Its key findings included: not every member of the representative class could show that they had an expectation of privacy and thus the representative claim, as a whole, failed. The assessment of the expectation of privacy involves a threshold of seriousness and will depend on the facts of each individual claimant’s case. Where a patient had placed relevant medical information in the public domain, a misuse of private information claim would not always succeed and so the same interest requirement for representative actions was not met; the judge’s refusal to allow Mr Prismall permission to amend the class was a case management decision made by the judge for good reasons. The amendments formulated for the appeal did not deal with the publication of relevant medical information on social media, which was the main reason the judge had found the lowest common denominator claimant had no real prospect of success. Written by Adele Ashton, partner at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.