‘Covid 19 has already had a tragic impact upon the health of many in the UK. One notable other consequence however, has been the impact upon the British economy.’
Parklane Plowden, 3rd April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘In a judgment handed down by Snowden J on a bank holiday on 13 April 2020 in the matter of Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch), we have the first decision regarding the application of the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“the Scheme”). The Scheme allows employers to claim for 80% of an employee’s salary (up to a maximum of £2500 per month) if staff are kept on the books doing no work (furloughed) rather than dismissed as redundant.’
Parklane Plowden, 16th April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘It is an employer’s duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of their employees and other people who might be affected by their business. Employers must do whatever is reasonably practicable to achieve this. Employers have duties under health and safety law to assess risks in the workplace.’
Church Court Chambers, April 2020
Source: churchcourtchambers.co.uk
‘Most of us are now up to speed (as far as possible) with the principle, and maybe practice, of furlough, but one thing that has yet to be tested is the ability of unfair dismissal protection to safeguard employees that are unable to attend or carry out work in line with current guidelines. At one point (specifically, 23.03.2020), there was a proposal to introduce provisions creating an automatic unfair dismissal where that dismissal was for ‘coronavirus-related’ reasons, and where the employer was entitled to reimbursement of statutory sick pay or payment under the coronavirus job retention scheme. That would have been to ensure that businesses being forced to close would also not result in mass job losses when funding to retain those jobs was available as an alternative to dismissal. At the date of writing, that proposal has not progressed, nor is there any other proposal to safeguard employees from any other ‘coronavirus-related’ dismissal. Whilst ordinary unfair dismissal principles will assist those employees with at least two years’ continuous employment, I wanted to consider a couple of options potentially open to employees not qualifying for that protection.’
St John's Chambers, 16th April 2020
Source: stjohnsbuildings.com
‘Despite the major disruption to daily living and the emergency legislation that has been rushed into effect in response to the outbreak of coronavirus (SARS CoV 2) and the resulting disease (Covid 19), the duty of employers to ensure the health and safety of their employees has remained undiminished. It is at times like these, when the work of many health care workers and others who provide essential services involves exposure to a greatly increased risk of serious injury or death, that the protection of such employees becomes all the more important. The admiration and gratitude of the nation is little consolation if the entitlement to basic health and safety measures is reduced on the ground of force majeure.’
Old Square Chambers, April 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘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
‘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
‘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
‘This article will discuss the first instance decision of DJ Adams in the case of French v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy heard in Newcastle County Court on noise-induced hearing loss.’
Parklane Plowden, 1st April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘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
‘In Morrison the Supreme Court was at pains to re-state and explain a previous judgment on an employer’s vicarious liability for employees that had been misinterpreted and misapplied both at trial and in the Court of Appeal. What was not examined at any level was the primary liability of joint data controllers, as regulated by the General Data Protection Regulation. This article looks at what the Supreme Court said about vicarious liability and the position of joint controllers.’
The 36 Group, 14th April 2020
Source: 36group.co.uk
‘The law around vicarious liability has been “on the move” since at least the 2012 landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56 (the “Christian Brothers case”). However, after years of expansion, the Supreme Court has now held in Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 that liability will not always be imposed for the acts of an independent contractor.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 3rd April 2020
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘On 1 April 2020, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in two conjoined Vicarious Liability cases: WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13. In this article, Michael Patrick reviews those judgments and considers their impact on the law of Vicarious Liability.’
Hailsham Chambers, 9th April 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘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
‘As the Coronavirus causes unprecedented and rapid change in our daily lives and many of us get used to the challenges of remote working, it is a good time to remind clients of the recent CoA decision in R. (on the application of Pensions Regulator) v Workchain Ltd [2019] EWCA Crim 1422 which demonstrates the wide application of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (“CMA”). The case serves as a stark warning for companies and their officers who are not taking data security seriously. Tim Green was instructed by The Pensions Regulator (“TPR”).’
Henderson Chambers, 3rd April 2020
© Inner Temple Library 2024