Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Procurement and Outsourcing Journal: September/October 2014

Julie Hamilton reports on the conclusion of the Healthcare at Home case

It is not often that the ‘man on the Clapham omnibus’ is asked his views on procurement (nor, as we shall see, should he be). This legal concept of the hypothetical ‘reasonable man’ first arose in a 1903 libel case (McQuire v Western Morning News Co Ltd [1903]) and later appeared in a more widely reported 1932 negligence case, Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club [1933], in which an injured spectator’s claim for compensation as a result of an accident was denied. Lord Greer felt that if the reasonable man attended a motor race he:

Peter Elliott, Vicky Moorcroft and Joe Ward consider how the UK will implement the new public procurement directive

The new public procurement directive (Directive 2014/24) came into force in April 2014. Championed by the UK government as including a number of ‘UK wins’, even before the directive was in force, the Cabinet Office had started to consider how it would be implemented into UK law. That included issuing a number of discussion papers intended to elicit views from the UK public sector on certain key issues.

Julian Yew and Charlotte Mortlock review the impact of recent regulatory changes to the TUPE regime and suggest practical HR strategies for commercial outsourcing

The Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 made a number of important changes to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment Regulations) 2006 (TUPE). These changes have been gradually phased into law in 2014 and are now in full force.

David Sawtell examines when a parent company may be liable in tort for the health and safety of the employees of its subsidiaries

In the last few years the appellate courts have explored the nature of the corporate veil and the circumstances in which it might be lifted or ignored. One perfectly valid reason why an organisation might choose to operate through a corporate structure of a number of companies rather than through a single legal person is to carefully insulate each aspect of its operations from liabilities arising elsewhere. Unfortunately, this can leave employees without redress if they have suffered from health and safety breaches but their employer in the corporate structure is not in a position to compensate them.

Sarah Holmes looks at recent revisions to the environmental impact assessment directive

Assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of certain public and private projects has been a feature of decision making in town and country planning and other project consenting processes in the UK since 1988. Over the years the process – the environmental impact assessment (EIA) – has provided fertile ground for legal challenges, which have been based both on procedural flaws and on assertions that actions by public authorities have been so unreasonable that they are unlawful.

Caroline Bywater and Jack Robinson provide an overview of the community infrastructure levy

Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008, which introduced the community infrastructure levy (CIL), tells us that it is a levy whose overall purpose is to ensure that costs incurred in supporting the development of an area can be funded (wholly or partly) by owners or developers of land, in a way that does not make development of the area economically unviable (s205(2)). The details for how and when CIL may be charged are set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (the CIL Regulations), as already amended a number of times.

Simon Randall and Joanna Bussell outline the development in public sector mutuals for the delivery of local government services

Public sector mutuals (PSMs) have been defined by the Cabinet Office as: