Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
CASE STUDY

“Although cost was an important factor, our relationship with LexisNexis, their responsiveness, flexibility, and the integration available with other products were key factors.”

Irwin Mitchell

Access all documents on Non-structural joint venture

Non-structural joint venture meaning

What does Non-structural joint venture mean?
In legal practice, a non-structural joint venture is a collaboration governed purely by contract, without creating a separate legal entity (no company, LLP or formal partnership). Also called a co‑operative or contractual joint venture (often a consortium, teaming or collaboration agreement), it is a descriptive term rather than one defined by statute or case law, and its usage is broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland. Key features include: parties retaining their own assets and staff; contractual allocation of scope, contributions, decision‑making, intellectual property, confidentiality, profit/risk sharing, insurance and exit; and no separate legal personality. The customer may appoint the parties jointly (potential joint and several liability) or each party contracts for its own work. Tax is generally “transparent”, with each party taxed on its own profits; VAT, employment and accounting remain at entity level. A central risk is inadvertent partnership where parties carry on business in common with a view of profit (Partnership Act 1890; in Scotland a partnership has separate legal personality). Agreements typically disclaim partnership and agency and control authority. Competition law, procurement rules and IP ownership require careful treatment. Common uses: bidding consortia, R&D, alliances and time‑limited projects.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Non-structural joint venture

NEWS
Property disputes weekly update—key case law, tenancy and rating reforms, service charges, building safety, and practice changes (England & Wales and Scotland)—19 March 2026

In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Repairing obligations and dilapidations Residential tenancies Service charges Rent and rates Disputes and remedies Neighbour disputes Enfranchisement and right to manage Contractual issues Easements and covenants Property disputes in Scotland Additional Property Disputes updates LexTalk® Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Key developments and horizon scanning The Renters’ Rights Act 2025—SDLT The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is intended to bring in tenant-favourable reforms, yet recent reporting has stressed that the roll-out of assured periodic tenancies may result in SDLT becoming payable on rent for some tenants in the years ahead. While these SDLT provisions are long-standing, general awareness remains limited. Andrew Kerr and Ella Perrett of Burges Salmon assess the position. See News Analysis: The Renters’ Rights Act 2025–SDLT. Repairing obligations and dilapidations ...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
EU law weekly: competition and state aid rulings; GDPR enforcement reform; cybersecurity and AI proposals; financial services and AMLA updates; telecoms and digital networks reforms; life sciences and IP developments

In this issue: EU fundamentals Competition and state aid Data protection and cybersecurity Financial services Environment Insurance and reinsurance IP Life sciences Regulatory TMT Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers EU fundamentals Cyprus Presidency of Council of the EU publishes presidency programme The Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the EU has unveiled its programme for 1 January to 30 June 2026, detailing priorities and direction under the banner ‘An Autonomous Union. Open to the World.’ The presidency’s objective is to fortify the EU’s strategic autonomy and internal cohesion amid rising geopolitical volatility and a more complex global setting, enabling the Union to co‑operate with international partners where feasible while retaining the ability to act independently when required. See: LNB News 15/01/2026 23...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
Back‑to‑back payment obligations encompass third‑party arbitral awards—even if erroneous: Queensland Court of Appeal, KGLNG v Santos Toga

KGLNG E&P Pty Ltd v Santos Toga Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 114 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling clarifies that where commercial counterparties peg a payment duty to an obligation in another contract that contains an arbitration clause, they are taken to accept the result of any arbitral determination of that obligation—particularly where the third party had notice of the arbitration agreement. It endorses prevailing market use of ‘back-to-back’ drafting in complex project structures, and places the burden of any miscalculation, or even a mistaken award, on the party that chooses to mirror the payer’s actual liability. For contractors, joint venture participants, and financiers with liabilities tied to third-party arrangements, the decision shows that tethering payment liability to another contract’s provisions can import that contract’s dispute resolution outcomes, including arbitration awards even if wrong...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Practice Notes about Non-structural joint venture

PRACTICE NOTES
Subscription and shareholders’ agreements in venture capital deals: drafting guidance on conditions, warranties, governance, reserved matters and investor protections (England and Wales)

Subscription and shareholders’ agreement This Practice Note offers guidance for drafters preparing and/or reviewing a subscription and shareholders’ agreement relating to the allotment of shares (and, potentially, loan notes) in a private limited company incorporated in England and Wales by a private equity (or venture capital) fund investor (the investor) within a venture capital (VC) deal, where the structure provides for split exchange and completion, ie conditions must be met before completion of the subscription and shareholders’ agreement. The investment contemplated is into an existing company (the Company), with the current shareholders (typically the business’s founders) keeping the shares they have already been issued in the Company. Set out below are matters to weigh up when drafting and/or reviewing the principal provisions of a subscription and shareholders’ agreement (SSA). Parties The investee company Although the principal parties to the SSA will be the relevant investor and the Company’s founders, the Company will ordinarily be included as a party too, ie the vehicle in which the investor...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Deadlock in UK corporate joint ventures: triggers, reserved matters, and resolution mechanisms (escalation, ADR/expert determination, buy-sell options, share transfers, and termination via liquidation or winding up)

A deadlock arises when parties to an agreement face an irreconcilable dispute and cannot reach consensus. The expression is commonly associated with corporate joint ventures (JVs), especially 50:50 JVs where neither side holds a controlling interest and, as a result, unanimous consent is required for all decisions. Deadlock may equally occur in non-50:50 JVs, for example where specific matters demand unanimity or where more than two JV participants vote and no majority is achieved. Certain conflicts can trigger a deadlock that prevents the joint venture company (JVC) from operating effectively. It is sensible to address at the outset how a deadlock might be settled. Consequently, joint venture agreements (JVAs) usually include deadlock resolution mechanisms (often in stepped stages) that must be followed to resolve the impasse. Defining deadlock procedures within the JVA will save time and expense if a deadlock emerges and will help the parties to maintain the JV's continuity. On occasion, the very circumstances that produce a deadlock can also prompt the aggrieved party to seek relief under...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
UK tax treatment of joint venture partnerships: operation, funding and termination (profits and losses, loan relationships, capital gains, stamp duty, SDLT/LBTT/LTT and VAT)

This Practice Note examines UK tax considerations for the operation and termination of a joint venture conducted through a partnership. For the purposes of this note, it is assumed that: the joint venture parties are UK tax resident corporate entities the joint venture partnership vehicle is also UK tax resident, and the venture’s activities are undertaken in the UK For information on: the establishment of a joint venture partnership, see Practice Note: Tax implications of establishing a joint venture partnership, and joint ventures with a non-UK element, see Practice Note: Tax implications of international joint ventures This Practice Note does not address certain investment partnerships that are unit trust schemes which may not be treated as transparent for tax purposes. Tax implications of operating a joint venture partnership In broad terms, a joint venture partnership operates in the same manner as any other partnership, since partnerships are, by definition, joint undertakings. Accordingly, what...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Precedents about Non-structural joint venture

PRECEDENTS
Short-form joint tender teaming agreement with IP, confidentiality, non-circumvention, limitation of liability and anti-bribery/tax evasion/fraud/modern slavery compliance (England and Wales)

This Agreement is entered into on [ date ] Parties [ Insert name of party ] [ of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [ insert registered number ] with its registered office at ] [ insert address ] (Party 1); and [ Insert name of party ] [ of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [ insert registered number ] with its registered office at ] [ insert address ] (Party 2), each of Party 1 and Party 2 being a party and, together, the parties. BACKGROUND Party 1 supplies [ insert description of goods and/or services ]. Party 2 supplies [ insert description of goods and/or services ]. The parties intend to submit a Bid as a joint tender to the Customer in answer to the Invitation to Tender. The parties seek to state their obligations and manage their rights concerning the Bid and, if the...

Read More Right Arrow
PRECEDENTS
Mutual confidentiality and non-solicitation agreement for corporate joint venture negotiations (England and Wales)

This Agreement is entered into on [ insert day and month ] 20[ insert year ]. Parties [ Insert name of first shareholder ], a company incorporated in England and Wales with company number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (Party A); and [ Insert name of second shareholder ], a company incorporated in England and Wales with company number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (Party B), each of Party A and Party B being a Party and, together, Party A and Party B are the Parties. Recitals (A) The Parties intend to commence negotiations concerning a proposed joint venture to [ insert purpose of joint venture ] (the Joint Venture). (B) To explore, discuss, assess and negotiate the proposed Joint Venture (the Purpose), the Parties will mutually disclose Information to one another...

Read More Right Arrow
PRECEDENTS
Mutual confidentiality and non-solicitation agreement for contractual joint venture due diligence and negotiations (England and Wales)

This Agreement is entered into on [ date ] Parties [ Insert name of party ], being [ of OR a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with number [ insert registered number ], and whose registered office is at [ insert address ] ] (Party A); [ Insert name of party ], being [ of OR a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with number [ insert registered number ], and whose registered office is at [ insert address ] ] (Party B). Each of Party A and Party B is a party, and together Party A and Party B constitute the parties. Background Party A is [ insert details ], whilst Party B is [ insert details ]. The parties intend to commence negotiations in relation to the Joint Venture. Each party intends to disclose Confidential Information to the other, to be used strictly for the Purpose. The parties...

Read More Right Arrow