‘In the first of what is planned to be five updates on collective consultation under the shadow of the coronavirus pandemic, David Reade QC and Daniel Northall examine the employer’s proposal for redundancy and the start of collective consultation.’
Littleton Chambers, 11th May 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘This comment focuses upon two recent Court of Appeal judgments:
R v Privett [2020] EWCA Crim 557 (“Privett”); and R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592 (“Manning”).’
Park Square Barristers, 12th May 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘In the rush to lift the lockdown with safeguards, the government has given a green light to “contact tracing” via bluetooth apps on our smartphones (provided we own them and are willling to take up the app).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th May 20202
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Court of Appeal has today given judgment in the long-running ZXC v Bloomberg litigation ([2020] EWCA Civ 611). The key points:
1. In general, a person does have a reasonable expectation of privacy about the fact that/details of their being subject to a police investigation, up to the point of charge.
2. Reporting about alleged conduct is different from reporting about a criminal investigation into that conduct.’
Panopticon, 15th May 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘A millionaire businessman is launching legal action against the government after it refused to disclose minutes of the Sage meetings that informed its decision to impose the coronavirus lockdown.’
The Guardian, 16th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘While the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor have announced that jury trials will commence this month, we are far from the pandemic’s conclusion. This fear is felt all the more by defendants facing sentencing hearings. Regardless of whether an offence was committed prior to the crisis, or in the currency, it does not change the new threat that an immediate custodial sentence brings – one of health.’
St Philips Barristers, 13th May 2020
Source: st-philips.com
‘The Centre for Military Justice, acting on behalf of three female service personnel has sent a pre – action protocol letter to the Ministry of Defence with regard to three cases which the service justice system (SJS) has conducted and their assertion appears to be that these victims were discriminated against. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) response is due this week. We have not seen the letter nor do we expect to see the response. The Centre for Military Justice stating publicly that by the end of the month they will issue proceedings in the High Court for Judicial Review (JR) citing action for discrimination under both the Human Rights Act and Equality Act. We await sight of the claim and then the defence.’
Thomas More Chambers, 14th May 2020
Source: www.thomasmore.co.uk
‘The impartiality of the criminal justice system is being undermined by the requirement that defendants declare their nationality at the start of proceedings, a report into the legislation has said.’
The Guardian, 18th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Police in England and Wales have issued more than 14,000 fines for alleged breaches of lockdown laws.’
BBC News, 15th May 2020
Source: www.bbc.com
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Mohamed v Breish & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 637 (15 May 2020)
Moss v Information Commissioner [2020] EWCA Civ 580 (15 May 2020)
ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2020] EWCA Civ 611 (15 May 2020)
Super Max Offshore Holdings v Malhotra [2020] EWCA Civ 641 (15 May 2020)
High Court (Administrative Court)
QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 1221 (Admin) (15 May 2020)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Mackay v Wesley [2020] EWHC 1215 (Ch) (18 May 2020)
Christoforou v Christoforou & Anor [2020] EWHC 1196 (Ch) (15 May 2020)
Swan & Ors v Gibbs & Ors [2020] EWHC 1226 (Ch) (15 May 2020)
Rees v 82 Portland Place Investments LLP & Anor [2020] EWHC 1177 (Ch) (15 May 2020)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Daiichi Chuo Kisen Kaisha v Chubb Seguros Brasil SA [2020] EWHC 1223 (Comm) (15 May 2020)
The Public Institution for Social Security v Amouzegar [2020] EWHC 1220 (Comm) (15 May 2020)
Burford Capital Ltd v London Stock Exchange Group Plc [2020] EWHC 1183 (Comm) (15 May 2020)
High Court (Family Division)
A Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2020] EWHC 1233 (Fam) (15 May 2020)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Sheianov v Sarner International Ltd [2020] EWHC 1214 (QB) (15 May 2020)
Elu v Floorweald Ltd [2020] EWHC 1222 (QB) (15 May 2020)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘Clearly recent events have had a huge impact on business and substantial changes to the nature and size of workforces is expected which will, unfortunately, require consideration of redundancies.’
Six Pump Court, 11th May 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘Prosecutors have reviewed more than 200 finalised cases under the coronavirus legislation up to the end of April, with any incorrect charges withdrawn and overturned.’
Crown Prosecution Service, 15th May 2020
Source: www.cps.gov.uk
‘On 13 May 2020, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 came into force, signaling a start to the tentative easing of the “lockdown” promised by the Prime Minister in his speech on 10 May 2020.’
Falcon Chambers, May 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘This decision exemplifies the stricter approach the courts are now taking in disciplinary cases where the regulated person fails to attend a hearing.’
Blackstone Chambers, 13th May 2020
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘As we enter the second phase of the national battle against Covid-19 it is possible to discern a change in the political climate. The cease-fire that has been in place for the last two months may be coming to an end, with the question of how the non-WFH workforce might resume fruitful economic activity dividing not just the political parties but also the national and devolved administrations. The early indications are that the conservative government’s preferred approach is to hand over to businesses the task of designing the ‘covid-secure’ workplace and then managing the return of their workers. Detailed practical guidance from government and the HSE (https://www.hse.gov.uk/index.htm) is already arriving and there will be extensive consultation with the unions, whose priority will be to prevent a resumption of work in unsafe factories, offices and sites. No doubt much can also be learned from those businesses that have been able to continue operating during lockdown. To ensure safety and consistency, the prime minister has promised the close involvement of the HSE – spot checks of workplaces are even being planned – and returning workers are being encouraged to blow the whistle on unsafe practices and premises.’
39 Essex Chambers, 13th May 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘On the 20 March 2020, the UK Government Chancellor, Rishi Sunak announced a number of measures to help employees and businesses through the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: one of them was the Coronovirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”). As billions of pounds is paid in grants to companies, the temptation to exaggerate claims, lie, cheat or just make fraudulently claims will occur. New loopholes and opportunities for fraud have emerged. HMRC is aware of this and have even set up a specialised whistleblower line. Yasin Patel and Amy Hazlewood explore the scheme and the potential criminal offences for anyone found to have made fraudulent claims under the CJRS.’
Church Court Chambers, May 2020
Source: churchcourtchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025