High Court Ruling Clarifies Continuation of GMS Contracts Despite Partnership Dissolution

Citation: [2024] EWHC 375 (Admin)
Judgment on


The High Court of Justice in the case of Vikram Bhat & Anor, R (on the application of) v NHS Litigation Authority provides insightful legal analysis into the effects of partnership dissolution on contractual obligations, specifically concerning a General Medical Services Contract (GMS contract). This article discusses the key topics outlined in the decision and aims to elucidate the legal principles relevant to this context.

Key Facts

The central issue involved a dispute regarding the implications of partnership dissolution for the GMS contract between the Claimants and National Health Service England (NHSE). Upon the dissolution of the partnership, it was disputed whether the GMS contract automatically terminated, and if an implied contract subsequently came into existence.

The Claimants served a notice on the remaining partner, Mrs Patel, in November 2021, dissolving the partnership at will. Afterward, the adjudicator, NHS Litigation Authority, determined the GMS contract terminated automatically by operation of law and that a new implied fixed-term contract was created.

The significant legal principles involved in this case include:

  1. General and Technical Dissolution of Partnership: The distinction between a general and technical dissolution of partnership is pivotal in this case. A technical dissolution occurs when the partnership continues in business without interruption, despite changes in its composition, whereas a general dissolution involves a full-scale winding-up of the partnership’s affairs, effectively ceasing its operations.

  2. The Effect of Partnership Dissolution on Contracts: A partnership dissolution can potentially end a third-party contract if it is personal in character to the individual partners. However, if the contract is to be performed by the firm as constituted over time, a change in partners will not automatically terminate the contract.

  3. Regulation 15 and Schedule 1 of the 2015 Regulations: These provisions are construed to mean that a GMS contract shall continue to subsist with the partnership as it is constituted from time to time, notwithstanding changes in partnership composition.

  4. The Role of Paragraph 59 of Schedule 3 of the 2015 Regulations and Clause 26.3 of the Contract: The court scrutinized these clauses, determining them to provide an option for the partners in a partnership to nominate one of the partners to continue the contract upon dissolution. They are not to be taken as an obligation, and their non-use is not a breach of contract.


The High Court ruled that the adjudicator erred in concluding that the GMS contract terminated automatically upon the dissolution of the partnership between the Claimants and Mrs Patel. The correct interpretation was that regulation 15 of the 2015 Regulations and Schedule 1 of the Contract provided for the continuation of the GMS contract with the partnership as it was from time to time constituted, even after the dissolution.

The court held that paragraph 59 of Schedule 3 and clause 26.3 of the Contract did not apply in this instance because the change in the identity of the partners was precisely what regulation 15 and Schedule 1 were designed to address.


The case of Vikram Bhat & Anor, R (on the application of) v NHS Litigation Authority clarifies the application of partnership law to GMS contracts in the event of partnership dissolution. The ruling emphasizes the importance of considering the specific provisions and clauses of the 2015 Regulations and the GMS contract that directly address these circumstances. As a result, GMS contracts are to be treated as continuing with the partnership as it is periodically reconstituted, thus dismissing the stance that a contract would terminate automatically following the dissolution of a partnership.

This judgment underscores the resilience of GMS contracts to changes in partnership composition, shedding light on the legislative intent for continuity and stability in the provision of medical services. Legal professionals can extract from this case the significance of intent and text in the interpretation of contracts and regulations in the context of partnership dynamics.

Related Summaries