‘The back drop to this case is that the new Practice Direction CPR 51Z effectively stays possession proceedings and enforcement issued pursuant to CPR 55 for 90 days from March 2020.’
St Ives Chambers, 16th April 2020
Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk
‘As Hippocrates remarked at the height of the Plague of Athens in 430BC, desperate times call for desperate measures. The deadly coronavirus has brought forth desperate measures almost everywhere, and the keystone of this country’s response to the crisis is the Coronavirus Act 2020. This post focusses on some key aspects of it, asking how the new offences relating to “potentially infectious” persons are defined and whether the Act as a whole is necessary.’
6KBW College Hill, 16th April 2020
Source: blog.6kbw.com
‘The last couple of weeks have seen a raft of new legislation in the United Kingdom, hurriedly passed to deal urgently with the coronavirus situation. It has clearly been drafted quickly, with guidance that goes well beyond the legislation, and so this has led to some confusion as to what exactly the law now says.’
OUP Blog, 21st April 2020
Source: blog.oup.com
‘The judgment Re Carluccio’s Ltd [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch) provides some much-needed clarity on the interrelation of the Furlough Scheme and the requirements of insolvency legislation. It is to be commended for its clarity and for the fact that it had to construe the workings of the Furlough Scheme in the absence of any statutory guidance as to its implementation. It is to be hoped that, when the Government comes to enact the necessary legislative measures (including perhaps amendments to Schedule B1 and IR 2016), that it does so with this judgment very firmly in mind.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 14th April 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Employers looking to make 20 or more employees redundant must comply with rigorous procedural safeguards under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”). Although the disruption caused by Covid-19 may force many employers to suddenly and unexpectedly consider a collective redundancy exercise, these safeguards remain unchanged by HM Government’s recent emergency legislation. Failure to follow the correct procedure can expose employers to liability for protective awards, although the current pandemic may well assist in establishing a defence of “special circumstances”.’
Thomas More Chambers, 16th April 2020
Source: www.thomasmore.co.uk
‘Society is experiencing the biggest Government led restriction of movement since the Second World War, instigated by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 which came into force at 1pm on 26th March 2020.’
St John's Buildings, 15th April 2020
Source: stjohnsbuildings.com
‘The House of Lords Constitution Committee recently published its recommendations in relation to the government’s fast-tracked Coronavirus Bill 2020. The House of Lords debates have welcomed the government’s decision not to derogate from the ECHR (in contrast to several other contracting parties). However, in seeking to ensure ECHR-compliance of the proposed scheme, the Committee placed significant emphasis on the availability of judicial review and administrative oversight of the powers contained therein to ensure their legality and constitutional acceptability. In this piece I suggest that, whilst these suggestions are no doubt welcome, the Committee’s focus on procedure rather than on the substantive requirements of human rights is indicative of wider concerning trends in human rights discourse.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 9th April 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 were made by the Health Secretary on 26 March 2020. Understandably, given the speed with which the crisis was and still is developing, the Regulations were made using a statutory emergency procedure, meaning that they were not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. They have yet to be challenged in the courts. In the meantime, a lively and important debate has developed about whether those regulations are lawful.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Marie Dinou, the woman from York convicted of a non-existent coronavirus offence after being found “loitering between platforms” at Newcastle railway station was lucky to be charged with something newsworthy. Had hers been a mundane motoring charge it is highly unlikely that anyone would have spotted that her treatment by the police and the justice system was stupid, incompetent and unlawful.’
Pump Court Chambers, 7th April 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘The Coronavirus Act 2020 (“the Act”) came into force on 25th March 2020. Among other things, the Act confers powers on public health officers, constables, and immigration officers to enable them to manage potentially infectious persons during the Covid-19 crisis. Schedule 21 of the Act contains provisions that enable the relevant officials to exercise their powers in respect of individuals in England, Wales and Scotland. This article will only focus on Part 2 of Schedule 21, which pertains to the powers of the government in England.’
3PB, 17th April 2020
Source: www.3pb.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
‘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
‘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
‘Police in Wales have fined a group of Londoners who were caught camping around 250 miles from the capital during the lockdown.’
The Independent, 19th April 2020
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The current pandemic has led to a flood of emergency legislation. This post deals with The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020 No. 350) made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which supplement the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Regulations are, as is now trite, the strictest control on peacetime life in the modern history of the United Kingdom, and they set out the limits of the “lockdown” and how it is to be enforced. This post aims to set out how the Regulations apply to individuals, and provide some analysis of their contents.’
6KBW College Hill, 6th April 2020
Source: blog.6kbw.com
‘Courts must take care not to “overreact in unprecedented times”, a former director of public prosecutions has said, amid concerns that lengthy sentences being imposed during the coronavirus crisis could be excessive.’
The Guardian, 19th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Those venturing to their local park over the weekend probably witnessed an increased presence of police constables, out to enforce the new restrictions on movement and public gatherings. Those restrictions, as well as rules forcing the closure of certain businesses and premises, were introduced on 26 March 2020 by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.’
Francis Taylor Building, 9th April 2020
Source: www.ftbchambers.co.uk
‘The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has introduced a new permitted development right for local authorities and certain health service bodies in England to carry out development with a view to tackling the coronavirus emergency.’
Local Government Lawyer, 14th April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘With the UK’s coronavirus lockdown extended for three more weeks, some people are looking towards a planned NHS phone app as “holding the key” to easing restrictions. But how realistic is this expectation and could there be unexpected consequences? EachOther examines.’
Each Other, 16th April 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024