‘If your employer dismisses you as a result of you being unable to work due to you being in the shield group then you may have a claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s100(1)(d) or (e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”), no minimum qualifying period of employment is required to bring this claim.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 14th April 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘The phrase “business as usual” has become cliché overnight. Hardwicke’s CDR team is attending hearings, drafting and advising and just as before. But, as regards litigation, the phrase is not wholly accurate. The courts are not operating as usual, solicitors and barristers are working remotely, and it’s not yet clear how the current crisis will impact the commercial litigation market. From that perspective the situation is very unusual.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 20th April 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘This article focuses on two of the many important issues – one under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the other under the Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) regime – which are likely to arise in the residential development sector during the current lockdown and economic downturn. The first issue is early stage viability review mechanisms, which are designed to capture a share of any increased profitability, to be used for additional on-site affordable housing provision where implementation is delayed. The second issue is CIL liability notices under The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, SI 2010/948.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 8th Aprill 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘On 6th April 2020 the TIPD came into force. It implements a number of changes and supplements to the Practice Direction – Insolvency Proceedings July 2018. The purpose is to avoid, where possible, parties attending court in person and the likely disruption in proceedings as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.’
Park Square Barristers, 8th April 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Section 4 of the Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’) defines the protected characteristics as age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The current public health and economic emergency that society and business face has the potential to impact upon each protected characteristic. For example, there are reports of increased racist behaviour and commentary targeting Chinese and Italian citizens. There have also been publicised grievances around a requirement to wear protective equipment and the impact on religious dress. Such issues could be tested in the courts under the provisions of the EqA.’
3PB, 7th April 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The coronavirus (COVID-19) and the government “lockdown” has bought about interesting times and the Coronavirus Act 20201, in particular ss.53-57 (with Schedules 23-27).’
Thomas More Chambers, 15th April 2020
Source: www.thomasmore.co.uk
‘On 26 March 2020 the four countries of the United Kingdom became subject to regulations setting out the most severe restrictions on liberty ever imposed. Those restrictions are vitally necessary for fighting the coronavirus. This article analyses the range of legal issues that the restrictions give rise to, investigating what further refinements and reinforcement are required to ensure they are placed on a more secure legal footing.’
Blackstone Chambers, 6th April 2020
‘How does this new and rapidly changing situation interact with the duties on employers to ensure the health and safety of their employees?’
39 Essex Chambers, 8th April 2020
Source: www.39essex.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
‘On 25 March 2020, the Coronavirus Act 2020 (‘the 2020 Act’) was given Royal Assent. Most of its provisions came into force immediately (s. 87). Almost all of them will expire within two years (s. 89). As an additional safeguard, Parliament is required to conduct a review of the legislation every six months (s. 98). The 2020 Act has, at least for the time being, radically changed the appearance of proceedings in the Crown Court: there will now be hearings where neither the parties nor the judge will actually be in court at all.’
6KBW College Hill, 2nd April 2020
Source: blog.6kbw.com
‘The Covid-19 crisis, and the Government’s containment measures, have had an extraordinary effect on business and society. This article looks at the legal implications for receiverships, focussing on the effect on existing receiverships.’
Falcon Chambers, April 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘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
‘In a time when we are all being urged to stay in our homes it seems appropriate to consider the recent changes to Housing Law in light of the Coronavirus pandemic. This article will consider the Coronavirus Act 2020, Practice Direction 51Z and the Guidance document issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘Guidance’).’
Pump Court Chambers, 7th April 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.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
‘Practice Direction 51Z was hastily brought into force on Friday 27 March 2020, after the Prime Minister’s televised instructions to the nation on the evening of Monday 23 March 2020 that everyone should stay at home in order to beat coronavirus. Practice Direction 51Z imposed a three-month stay on all Part 55 possession proceedings, which ensures that those who were facing the possibility of eviction from their home have some protection during the crisis. However, since the Practice Direction came into force, property practitioners have been grappling with the possibly unintended consequences that come from its very wide scope. This has been brought into sharp focus by the recent case of University College London Hospitals Foundation Trust v MB [2020] EWHC 882 (QB), in which PD51Z prevented an NHS Trust from obtaining a possession order to facilitate the discharge of a patient from hospital, in circumstances where her bed was needed for critically ill-patients, she was medically fit for discharge, and indeed she would be at less risk of infection from COVID-19 if out of the hospital. As this article explains, the NHS Trust in the UCLH case was able to obtain the relief it needed by the alternative route of an injunction, but the case nevertheless highlights that PD51Z may need to be revisited.’
Falcon Chambers, 15th April 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘Campaign group Justice has run an experimental fully remote jury trial to test whether it could be a fair alternative to face-to-face hearings during the coronavirus lockdown.’
Law Society's Gazette, 20th April 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025