‘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 restrictive measures imposed in an attempt to curb the spread of Covid-19 are creating an unprecedented and often existential challenge for businesses across the globe, and sports clubs are no exception. Indeed, given the suspension of almost all sports, sports clubs are amongst the worst hit, as most sources of revenue dry up including (depending on where they fall within the pyramid) ticket sales, subs, and revenue gained from hiring out venues for concerts, conferences and other private events.’
Littleton Chambers, 6th April 2020
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘On 20th March 2020, HMRC announced that it would set up the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. The purpose of the scheme is to prevent mass redundancies and unemployment in the wake of the global coronavirus pandemic. On 26th March 2020, HMRC published further guidance on the scheme. The guidance was then updated on 4th April 2020 and again on 9th April 2020.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 14th April 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘Morrisons, heard recently in the Supreme Court, concerns vicarious liability for a rogue data controller. Together with another Supreme Court case, Barclays Bank, these two cases cover all the key issues.’
Six Pump Court, 8th April 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘There is no doubt that the Government owes a moral duty to provide those on the frontline fighting this virus with the tools they need to work safely. Beyond the undeniable moral duty, does the Government owe them a legal duty as well?’
Nexus Chambers, 10th April 2020
Source: www.nexuschambers.com
‘This appeal concerned the circumstances in which an employer can be held to be vicariously liable for wrongs committed by its employees, and also whether vicarious liability may arise for breaches by an employee of duties imposed by the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Following the Supreme Court’s refusal to permit an appeal in Chief Constable of Leicestershire v Hextall, the Court of Appeal’s earlier judgment remains binding. In a case which brings the paradoxes inherent in the UK’s system of workplace parental rights into sharp focus, the Court held that it is not discriminatory to pay a man on shared parental leave (SPL) less than an enhanced rate of maternity pay paid to a woman on maternity leave (ML).’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 7th April 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘If you believe that an individual who works with children sexually assaulted you, but was never prosecuted for that allegation, it is understandable that you might wish to know whether that person has been placed on the formal list of persons barred from engaging in regulated activity with children, run by the Disclosure and Barring Service (“DBS”). But it is also understandable why the DBS might not wish to tell you (and thereby the public at large) who is or is not barred, and even more so why the individual accused would not wish that to be revealed. Who’s rights win out?’
Panopticon, 8th April 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘Robert Kellar QC and Isabel McArdle of 1 Crown Office Row discuss with Rosalind English the latest Supreme Court rulings rejecting the liability of Barclays Bank for the wrongdoings of an independent contractor, on the one hand, and the liability of Morris’s Supermarket for the breach of data protection laws by one of its employees, on the other. Are enterprises to be shielded from the risks created by persons they commission to perform certain tasks?’
Law Pod UK, 9th April 2020
Source: audioboom.com
‘In the Christian Brothers case Lord Phillips of famously declared that “the law of vicarious liability is on the move”. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Barclays Bank v. Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 has brought that movement to a juddering halt. The question posed by the appeal was a simple one. Is it possible to be vicariously liable for the acts of a self-employed ‘independent contractor’? The answer the Court gave in this case was ‘no’.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘This appeal concerns the circumstances in which an employer is vicariously liable for wrongs committed by its employees, and also whether vicarious liability may arise for breaches by an employee of duties imposed by the Data Protection Act 1998.’
UKSC Blog, 1st April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In this appeal, the Supreme Court is asked to decide whether Barclays Bank is vicariously liable for sexual assaults allegedly committed between 1968 and about 1984 by the late Dr Gordon Bates. Dr Bates was a self-employed medical practitioner with a portfolio practice. His work included conducting medical assessments and examinations of prospective Barclays employees. Barclays required job applicants to pass a pre-employment medical examination as part of its recruitment and employment procedures.’
UKSC Blog, 1st April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The term “PPE” has become one of general comment and concern. Here our newest recruit at Kings Jasmine Chan explains the Regulations, the duties owed and the government guidance in relation to PPE and coronavirus.’
Coronavirus: Guidance for Lawyers and Businesses, 2nd April 2020
‘Employers are making difficult choices at this time in situations which have never affected their workplaces before. Employment lawyers are having to advise in a context where the landscape is changing day by day. As fresh guidance is issued and new headlines emerge, the next legal queries evolve.’
Cloisters, 27th March 2020
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Employers are making difficult choices at this time in situations which have never affected their workplaces before. As fresh guidance is issued and new headlines emerge, the next legal queries evolve.’
Cloisters, 30th March 2020
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Barclays is not liable for the alleged sexual assault of more than 100 patients by a doctor carrying out medicals on the bank’s behalf, the supreme court has ruled.’
The Guardian, 1st April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘It is generally assumed that the threshold for a statement made by a worker to qualify for whistleblowing protection is not high. After all, the information provided need only ‘tend’ to show, in the ‘reasonable belief’ of the worker that one of the wrongs identified in s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996 is being, has been, or will be committed. Often therefore, an unfair dismissal, or detriment, claim will proceed on the basis, without more, that the worker told the employer something to do with health and safety (or legal obligation or crime etc.). A deeper analysis of the s.43B requirements shows that qualification for protection is not as simple as first appears.’
St John's Buildings, March 2020
Source: stjohnsbuildings.com
‘A council head of legal secured a fresh Employment Tribunal hearing because a member of the original tribunal was asleep for part of the proceedings, it has emerged.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025