Must read

The Practical impact of the Procurement Act 2023
– the challenges, the benefits and the legal lacunas
In the second of three articles for Local Government Lawyer on the Procurement
Act 2023 one year after it went live, Katherine Calder and Victoria Fletcher from
DAC Beachcroft consider some of its practical impact and implications, including
how to choose the right regime, how authorities are tackling the notice requirements,
considerations when making modifications, and setting and monitoring KPIs.
The Practical impact of the Procurement
Act 2023 – the challenges, the benefits
and the legal lacunas
Katherine Calder and Victoria Fletcher from DAC Beachcroft
consider some of its practical impact and implications,
including how to choose the right regime, how authorities
are tackling the notice requirements, considerations when
making modifications, and setting and monitoring KPIs.


Weekly mandatory food
waste collections
What are the new rules on food waste collections and why are
councils set to miss the March deadline? Ashfords’ energy
and resource management team explain.
Weekly mandatory food
waste collections
What are the new rules on food waste collections and why are
councils set to miss the March deadline? Ashfords’ energy
and resource management team explain.


The Procurement Act 2023: One Year On -
How procurement processes are evolving
Katherine Calder and Sarah Foster of DAC Beachcroft focus on
changes to procurement design at selection and tender stage in
three key areas of change that the Act introduced.
The Procurement Act 2023: One Year On -
How procurement processes are evolving
Katherine Calder and Sarah Foster of DAC Beachcroft focus on
changes to procurement design at selection and tender stage in
three key areas of change that the Act introduced.


Service charge recovery
and the Building Safety Act 2022
Zoe McGovern, Sian Gibbon and Caroline Frampton set out
what local authorities need to consider when it comes to
the Building Safety Act 2022 and service charge recovery.
Service charge recovery
and the Building Safety Act 2022
Zoe McGovern, Sian Gibbon and Caroline Frampton set out
what local authorities need to consider when it comes to
the Building Safety Act 2022 and service charge recovery.

Newsletter registration
Injunctions to restrain breaches of planning control
Who bears the burden?
Lawfulness and applications for a CLEUD
The OIA’s 2026 operating plan: What universities need to know
The Cardiff Airport subsidy control ruling
White Paper on SEN reforms: some lessons from the current Welsh SEN system
Greyhound racing and the separation of powers
CILEX and others v Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369
The Hillsborough Law Bill: implications for public bodies
Dispensing with notice to father
Court of Protection case update April 2026
The new PD27A: a step change in Family Court bundle and document management
Déjà Vu – the implications of Zenobē Energy’s latest case for local government
The ERA – Benefits and Working Conditions
£150m Clean Maritime Grant Competition Opens – Critical Subsidy Control Steps for Applicants
Failure by Employers to Keep Holiday Records Becomes a Criminal Offence From April 2026
Why I Wanted to Explore Intensity of Review Across the UK and New Zealand
Asylum hotels, overcrowding and the HMO rules
Practical impact of the Procurement Act 2023 – the challenges, the benefits and the legal lacunas
Intentional homelessness and tenancies obtained by false statement
Defective but not fatal
Self-grants of planning permission, functional separation and demolition avoidance
The lawfulness of emailing licensing decision notices
Intervention: the Monitoring Officer’s view
The role of the backbench councillor
FOI and information held on computer systems
Sentencing guidelines for HSE offences and public bodies
Correcting mistakes in public decision making
The Supreme Court on termination of JCT contracts
Weekly mandatory food waste collections
Weekly mandatory food waste collections
Housing delivery stalling - role of local authorities
Renters’ Rights Act 2025 - what it means for local authorities
DOLS and Under 16s: Insights from Medway Council v A Father
The Local Power Plan: Putting Clean Power in Communities’ Hands
The powers of exclusion panels
Removal from kinship care
When school discipline meets disability
Navigating the expansion of foster care
Personal welfare deputies – Lawson and Mottram strikes back?
No "clinical decision" exemption from best interests
Local Government Reorganisation 2026
Adoption vs long-term fostering
Evolution of the academy trust and maintained school landscape
Care leavers and redaction of records
“Unusual facts and procedural irregularities”
Planning appeals and costs awards
Refusal of planning applications against officers’ advice
Land value and the principle of reality
The latest Sizewell C JR
Impecuniosity and other issues in credit hire claims
Anti-Money Laundering: Key Issues for Local Government Legal and Governance Teams
Arts and Culture, Community and Regeneration: The Two New Streamlined Subsidy Routes
Disclosure to the DBS
The CAT and the New Lottery Subsidy Control challenge
Gender-questioning children under draft KCSIE 2026
Accelerating the planning appeals process: unintended consequences
The convergence of DRS, Simpler Recycling and EPR
Reserve below-threshold contracts for UK or local suppliers under the 2026 Order
CMO Principle and Financial Assistance Further Clarified in Latest CAT Judgment on Subsidy Control
Make Europe Build Again – The EU Industrial Accelerator Act
Affordable housing funding news & unlocking S106 units
The Social and Affordable Housing Programme 2026–2036: new guidance
Housing case alert - February 2026
Residential developments: new section 106 delivery roadmap
The Renters Rights Act and social landlords
Assured tenancies: written statements and information sheets
The Procurement Act 2023: One Year On - How procurement processes are evolving
Book review: “Reforming lessons”
Service charge recovery and the Building Safety Act 2022
The draft NPPF consultation: what’s new
Mobile phones, AI and schools
Transparency in FII cases
Court documents and AI
Next steps for the LGPS after the access and fairness consultation
What is an Officer?
The High Court on the EHRC’s “interim update”
Substituted decision notices and contempt of court
Social media guidance for members
2026 in construction: a look ahead
Track allocation in housing disrepair claims
Withdrawing applications for care orders
Appropriate professional boundaries for teachers
Children under 16 and deprivation of liberty
A Welsh white leopard?
Conversion to an ‘empty’ MAT
Local Government Reorganisation 2026
Must read
Service charge recovery and the Building Safety Act 2022
Fix it fast: How “Awaab’s Law” is forcing action in social housing
Housing management in practice: six challenges shaping the sector
Why AI must power the next wave of Social Housing delivery
Must read
Weekly mandatory food waste collections
Service charge recovery and the Building Safety Act 2022
Sponsored articles
Unlocking legal talent
Walker Morris supports Tower Hamlets Council in first known Remediation Contribution Order application issued by local authority
Council entitled to terminate £160m outsourcing deal, says High Court judge
- Details
Cornwall Council was entitled to terminate its £160m outsourcing contract with BT Cornwall, a High Court judge has ruled.
The 10-year agreement at the centre of the case of BT Cornwall Ltd v Cornwall Council & Ors [2015] EWHC 3755 (Comm) covered services including health, transport, communications and public safety.
In June this year the local authority wrote to BT Cornwall asserting that, by reason of breaches of the agreement by BT Cornwall, it and its public sector partners – Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Peninsula Community Health CIC – had a right to terminate the agreement forthwith.
BT Cornwall subsequently sought an injunction to prevent termination of the agreement.
The alleged material breaches of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) concerned response times in fixing faults. It was also argued that BT Cornwall had failed to meet an obligation to create new jobs in Cornwall.
BT Cornwall sought to argue – amongst other things – that:
- The parties had reached a ‘KPI Backlog Agreement’ which meant the public sector partners were not entitled to terminate the agreement;
- If the facts fell short of enabling the court to conclude that a binding agreement in the form of the KPI Backlog Agreement was reached, then the facts gave rise to an estoppel or affirmation for BT Cornwall, so as to bar the council from relying on breaches of KPIs in February, March and April 2015 in terminating for material breach.
Mr Justice Knowles heard the case on an expedited basis over seven days this month, ruling in the council’s favour yesterday (21 December).
The Commercial Court judge said: “BTC faced problems of its own making and did not provide to the defendants the service it had promised to the standard it had promised. The council worked with BTC to try to resolve things but ultimately decided the position was not good enough.
“There is no absence of good faith or presence of capriciousness in expecting BTC to clear the backlog at once and also to take the contractual consequences if that meant KPIs would be breached again. There was.... no KPI Backlog Agreement, waiver, estoppel or affirmation. And unless and until different KPIs were agreed there is no absence of good faith or presence of capriciousness in expecting BTC to honour the existing agreed KPIs, ‘fit for purpose’ or not.”
The judge criticised the agreement, which was “very hard to work with, including by reason of its impractical length” and suffered from imprecision in some of its drafting.
“It runs to several lever arch files without that length providing clarity in return. Its oversight and governance arrangements proved inadequate for all parties when things started to go wrong,” Mr Justice Knowles said.
Cornwall Council welcomed the High Court ruling and said it intended to give notice of the contract before Christmas. There will be no immediate change in the arrangements as the notice will not take effect until January, the local authority added.
“The process of transferring staff and services from BT Cornwall to the council and our public sector partners will begin in January and will be completed as quickly and smoothly as possible,” Cornwall said.
James Ramsden and Cleon Catsambis of 39 Essex Chambers appeared for Cornwall Council, instructed by Browne Jacobson.
Duncan McCall QC, George Woods (both of 4 Pump Court) and Ben Woolgar (of Brick Court) appeared for BT Cornwall, instructed by BT Cornwall.
Nichola Evans, Commercial Dispute Partner at Browne Jacobson, said: “We are delighted for our client and hope this sends out a strong message to all parties engaged in complex agreements that in the end it is the contractual terms of the contract that will ultimately prevail.
“In his judgment the judge not only criticised the poor drafting of the agreement but was scathing of BTC’s performance under the contract.
“He also gave a solemn reminder that the dispute had affected the public and stressed the importance of taking steps to avoid another similar situation in the future, both in Cornwall and elsewhere.”










