‘Employment tribunals should be given powers to make awards of up to £100,000 for breach of contract and to deal with disputes where staff are still in work, the Law Commission has recommended.’
The Guardian, 29th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, announced the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”) on 20th March 2020 with the aim to protect jobs during the crisis. A recent estimate is that this could cost £30-£40 billion over three months[1] and the take-up by businesses is much higher than expected such that 50% of companies are putting most of their staff into the scheme. We are all becoming familiar with the term ‘furlough’ (i.e. to allow or force someone to be absent temporarily from work) and up to nine million workers are now expected to be furloughed. The Scheme was necessarily hastily written in response to an unforeseen crisis and, despite government guidance issued on 27th March 2020 which was updated on 4th April 2020 and then again on 9th April 2020[4], employment lawyers are finding themselves advising on the gaps in the regime. The online service through which employers can make a claim is expected to be up and running by the end of April 2020 however in the interim employers, with the help of their advisors, are having to interpret the guidance to inform significant business decisions.’
Parklane Plowden, 14th April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The Updated Guidance alters the scope of the CJRS in significant ways, most importantly by extending it to individuals who are not employees but are taxed through PAYE, and answers a number of questions about the way the CJRS is intended to work which were left unanswered by the Original Guidance.’
Old Square Chambers, 6th April 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘A contract may come to an end by operation of the doctrine of frustration when an unforeseen event makes performance impossible or radically different to what the parties originally intended. The doctrine applies to employment contracts as it does to other types of contract. However, it is an issue rarely encountered by employment lawyers. Tribunals are generally reluctant to find that an employment contract has been frustrated, largely because the doctrine allows employers to sidestep statutory protections afforded to employees. However, unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures, and frustration may become a useful tool in certain employers’ fight against the disruption caused by the Covid 19 pandemic.’
Parklane Plowden, 1st April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The UK Treasury has now published the formal rules of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme in the form of a Treasury direction, as well as announcing that the scheme will run until at least 30 June 2020.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th April 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘If you are reading this article with alacrity, chances are you are in charge of a business contemplating adoption of the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (the Scheme) in preference to laying-off or making redundant some or all of your workforce; that, or you will be looking to advise such people on what to include within a furlough letter.’
3PB, 7th April 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“the Scheme”) was announced by the government on 20th March 2020.’
Pump Court Chambers, 4th April 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“the Scheme”) is a grant that, for those eligible, covers 80% of the usual monthly wage costs up to a ceiling of £2,500 per month plus associated employer NICs and employer pension contributions paid on the furlough pay up to the level of the minimum automatic enrolment employer contribution. Employees can be on any type of employment contract, including full-time, part-time, agency, flexible or zero-hour contracts. Foreign nationals are also eligible to be furloughed.’
Old Square Chambers, 14th April 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘With the prospect of several bank holidays on the horizon with little indication as to how long circumstances may require continued periods of furlough under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (‘the Scheme’), many employers will be worried as to how they deal with the interaction between furlough and annual leave. Specifically, whether they can require annual leave to be taken during furlough and how they deal with bank holidays where they are included within employee’s annual leave entitlement under their contracts of employment.’
Broadway House Chambers, 9th April 2020
Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk
‘The government has now provided details of the ‘Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme’ which was first announced on 20 March 2020.’
3PB, 7th April 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The football world, like almost every other sector of the economy, is grappling with the unprecedented impact of the coronavirus pandemic. In English football, the official position remains as set out in the joint statement issued by the main professional stakeholders on 20 March 2020: football is currently suspended but ‘all options’ are being explored ‘to find ways of resuming the season when conditions allow’.’
7th April 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A new term has entered the employment lexicon: furloughing. What does it mean and how does it relate to the longer established concept of laying-off? Are employers better placed to take advantage of the government’s scheme for paying furloughed employees or to consider laying off their staff or making them redundant?’
4 New Square, 25th March 2020
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘The Divisional Court will this week (3 April) consider whether to suspend the Home Office’s ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) policy.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Employee monitoring and surveillance can be a thorny issue. Some monitoring of employee activity may be required for reasons of security or to protect an employer’s resources from abuse. However, while an employer may justify a monitoring measure on the basis of economic imperative, it could also be viewed by its employees, the public or the courts as unjustified snooping.’
The 36 Group, 12th March 2020
Source: 36group.co.uk
‘Tracey Robinson (‘C’) was hired by Mr Cathcart on behalf of the Crown Prince Ras-alKhaimah (‘the Sheikh’) in 2007 to carry out a number of duties including looking after the Sheikh’s children and properties in the UK. The contract clearly stipulated that C was responsible for paying her own tax.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The UK government is facing a legal challenge over claims it is failing to protect the wages and jobs of millions of workers amid the coronavirus pandemic.’
Each Other, 23rd March 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘This appeal concerned a provision about long term disability benefit (“LTDB”) which formed part of the Claimant’s contract of employment. It provided for the employee to receive a Disability Income of 2/3rds of his Base Annual Salary less the State Invalidity Pension should he be absent from, and unable to, work due to sickness or injury for a continuous period of twenty-six weeks or more, which would commence twenty-six weeks after the start of his absence and continue until the earlier date of his “return to work, death or retirement”.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘In an important decision yesterday (27 February), Allen v Dodd & Co Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 258, the Court of Appeal held that if a person believes their conduct will probably not result in a breach of a contract they will not be liable for inducing a breach even if: (a) they knew there was a risk of breach; and (b) the court subsequently finds such a breach.’
Littleton Chambers, 28th February 2020
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘An employer acted reasonably in relying on legal advice that the restrictive covenants on a new employee were unlikely to be enforceable, even though they proved to be, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Claimant’s belief in Forstater – that “sex is biologically immutable” — denied trans people their legal right to be recognised as the sex they had transitioned to even when they had obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate. This right has been recognised for over a decade by the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) and by domestic law in the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The Claimant’s belief — in the words of Judge Tayler — also violated the dignity of trans people and created an “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment” for them.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th January 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024