header-logo header-logo

Community Right to Challenge (Expressions of Interest and Excluded Services) (England) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1313)

22 May 2012
Categories: Legislation
printer mail-detail

The Localism Act 2011, Pt 5, ch 2 sets out a right whereby certain bodies may submit an expression of interest...

Commencement date

27 June 2012


Summary

Background

The Localism Act 2011, Pt 5, ch 2 sets out a right whereby certain bodies may submit an expression of interest in providing or assisting in providing services on behalf of specified authorities in the exercise of any of those authorities’ functions in relation to England.

Effect

These Regulations implement, in reg 3 and Sch 1, the provision in the Localism Act 2011, s 81(1)(b), which gives the Secretary of State the power to specify requirements for “expressions of interest”. They also provide, in reg 4 and Sch 2, for services of a kind to be excluded from the community right to challenge under powers in s 81(5).

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll