Contact | Search |

Tag: Commercial-litigation

The Sporting Events Bill: a legislative framework for major sporting events

Posted on by Anna Weeden

The Sporting Events Bill, which establishes a legislative framework for future major international sporting events hosted in the UK, is currently moving through Parliament. Its key provisions relate to ticket touting, advertising and trading in restricted areas, unauthorised association with an event, transport and funding.

What is the Sporting Events Bill?

The Sporting Events Bill (“the Bill”), introduced to the House of Lords on 14 May 2026, offers a common legislative framework for future major sporting events. While in the past, Parliament passed event-specific legislation such as the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 to plug any necessary legislative gaps, the Bill establishes an event-agnostic legislative framework that will govern major sporting events hosted by the UK going forward. This would likely include the upcoming men’s UEFA EURO 2028 football tournament, and, if the UK’s bid for it is successful, the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035.

This new framework aims to ensure that the UK remains competitive when entering bid processes for hosting rights for major international sporting events. The goal is to make it clear that the UK is able to fulfil any required commitments to sporting event owners during the bidding process (for example, regarding protections in place for the event), and to do so efficiently without the uncertain and cumbersome process associated with passing bespoke primary legislation.

Which sporting events will be covered?

The framework will apply to events held wholly or partly in the UK on an irregular basis which are of significant international interest, and would bring social or economic benefits to the whole or part of the UK, and to events likely to facilitate holding such events (clause 3 of the Bill). For example, while UEFA European Championships, FIFA Football World Cups and Rugby World Cups may be in scope, events that regularly take place in the UK such as the Wimbledon Championships or FA Cup Final are not in scope of the Bill.

Key Provisions

The Bill includes provisions in respect of the following issues:

Ticket touting (clauses 5-7 and Schedule 1)Under the Bill, it is a criminal offence to sell, offer to sell, expose for sale, or advertise an event ticket without authorisation in a public place, in the course of a business, or to make a profit.
Advertising in restricted areas (clauses 8-10 and Schedule 2)Under the Bill, it is a criminal offence to carry out an advertising activity in a restricted advertising zone during a specified period, or to arrange or permit for this to be done. An advertising activity is anything done to promote a product, service or business to members of the public who are in a restricted advertising zone or watching or listening to a broadcast of the event.
Trading in restricted areas (clauses 11-13 and Schedule 3)The Bill sets out a criminal offence which partially mirrors the ‘advertising in restricted areas’ offence in respect of trading. Trading activities include (i) selling or offering or exposing a product for sale, (ii) providing or offering to provide a service or providing entertainment for gain or reward, and (iii) appealing for money or other property (except begging).
Unauthorised association with the event (clauses 14-16 and Schedule 4)The Bill prohibits a person acting in the course of a business from engaging in the unauthorised use of a representation (of any kind) in a manner likely to suggest to the public an association between the sporting event and goods or services (or a person providing them) during the specified period.  

Those guilty of the ticket touting and advertising and trading in restricted areas provisions can be fined, and breach of the unauthorised association with the event provision is treated as an infringement of a property right, with various court remedies available.

The Bill also includes provisions to facilitate transport arrangements for events (clause 17 and Schedule 5) and to enable national authorities to provide financial assistance to support sporting events (clause 25).

Event-specific regulations

The Bill has been drafted with built-in flexibility to accommodate the varied requirements of the different sporting events to which it will apply.

Although the Bill offers a framework for issues affecting a broad range of sports, there is an expectation that an appropriate national authority and/or the Secretary of State will introduce regulations applying one or more of the Bill’s provisions to specific sporting events within its scope. Many parts of the provisions are defined by reference to these event-specific regulations, such as the location of the restricted advertising and trading zones in the provisions governing advertising and trading in restricted areas.

There are also various carve-outs and exceptions, and the relevant authorities are empowered to specify further ones by regulation. Authorisations can be granted to ensure that, for example, event sponsors can carry out advertising or trading within a restricted zone.

What happens next?

The Bill was debated during its second reading in the House of Lords on 3 June 2026. We will continue to monitor its progress through Parliament and keep clients informed on key updates.

It is worth noting that there is a separate push to make it illegal for tickets to concerts, theatre, comedy, sport and other live events to be resold for more than their original cost. On 19 November 2025, the government published its response to its consultation on the resale of live events tickets, and proposed a draft Ticket Tout Ban Bill in the King’s Speech on 13 May 2026.

Those in any way involved with major sporting events, including organisers, sponsors and commercial partners, should consider how they will be affected and take proactive steps to ensure they are prepared once the Bill is ready to come into effect.

Please reach out to Ella Ditri or Mike Glover-Smith for support on this.

Court of Appeal decision in digital transformation case

Posted on by Julia Krol

The Court of Appeal recently held that a customer who instructed a supplier to provide digital transformation services was not entitled to delay payments (liquidated damages) of c. £1.6m.

This is because the prompt issuing of a “non-conformance report” by the customer was said to be a condition precedent to the customer receiving delay payments, and no such report was promptly issued. The Court reached this result notwithstanding the term “condition precedent” not being used in the contract.

The relevant provision provided that:

“6.1. If a Deliverable does not satisfy the Acceptance Test Success Criteria and/or a Milestone is not Achieved due to the CONTRACTOR’s Default, the AUTHORITY shall promptly issue a Non-conformance Report to the CONTRACTOR … The AUTHORITY will then have the options set out in clause 6.2.”

“6.2 the AUTHORITY may at its discretion … choose to … require the payment of Delay Payments…”

The Court of Appeal reached this decision because:

  1. It is not necessary for the term “condition precedent” to be used if the contract clearly provides that the relief is conditional on a requirement.
  2. The “if .., then ..” structure in the clauses was clearly conditional and without the non-conformance report, the clauses would not operate properly.
  3. It is not necessary for the deadline for the condition precedent to be expressed as a precise time period – “promptly” is sufficient.

The case shows that both contract drafters and litigators must pay close attention to remedies provisions to ensure that conditions precedent are not inadvertently included and are fully complied with.

The case can be found here: Disclosure and Barring Service v Tata Consultancy Services Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 380.

COURT OF APPEAL VERDICT IN EXCLUSION CLAUSE DISPUTE

Posted on by admin

In February 2025 the Court of Appeal (by a 2:1 majority) dismissed an appeal brought by EE against Virgin Mobile in relation to a significant claim arising out of a telecommunications supply agreement.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the first instance decision that the exclusion clause excluded EE’s entire £24.6m loss of profit claim against Virgin Mobile.

EE claimed that it had suffered loss and damage in the amount of £24.6m as a result of Virgin Mobile breaching an exclusivity obligation in the telecommunications supply agreement, because EE had lost the revenue that it would have received from Virgin Mobile under the terms of the agreement had the exclusivity obligation not been breached.

Virgin Mobile denied breaching the agreement as alleged but argued that, in any event, EE’s claim was precluded because it was, in substance, a claim for anticipated profits. It therefore fell within the scope of the exclusion clause in the agreement which provided that “Neither Party shall be liable to the other in respect of … anticipated profits”.

EE argued that this interpretation could not be correct because (amongst other things), on the facts which occurred, EE did not have a wasted expenditure claim or a good argument for an injunction, so excluding the loss of profits claim would leave EE without an effective remedy, creating commercial absurdity and defeating the main purpose of the agreement.

The majority of the Court of Appeal rejected this argument because the specific facts which occurred, where no alternative remedy was viable, were not known to the parties when they entered into the agreement and therefore should not affect its interpretation. It was held that, applying the proper legal principles, the exclusion clause did preclude EE’s entire claim.

However, the Court of Appeal did not reach this conclusion easily, and indeed Phillips LJ dissented, noting that “it would be surprising if the parties intended that [Virgin Media] could breach the key exclusivity provision, unlawfully diverting its customers to a third party supplier, without incurring liability to pay EE damages reflecting the loss of revenue resulting from that breach”.

This case provides a further example of the unpredictability of the interpretation of exclusion clauses and the importance of clear, future-proof, contract drafting.

Important amendments to procurement legislation

Posted on by admin

On 24 February 2025 the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) came into force.

This is significant for both public sector entities and their suppliers because the PA 2023 replaces the well-established EU-founded regime under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 which previously governed public sector procurement processes.

The most striking change to the law is that the PA 2023 introduces a new supplier exclusion and debarment regime which means that suppliers who fail to meet particular standards or pose particular risks (for example, risks to national security) can be debarred from tendering for public contracts. This goes further than the previous regime which only allowed for suppliers to be excluded from particular projects.

In addition to the obvious financial implications of being precluded from participating in new tenders or being awarded call-off contracts, there are likely to be reputational consequences for the affected suppliers as debarred suppliers will be added to a public register, with the ground for their debarment also given.

There are routes to challenge disbarment but, just like any other public procurement challenge, it is advisable to take action quickly and obtain specialist advice to avoid falling foul of the procedural hurdles and limitation issues which claims of this nature often face.