‘Two judgments from the Supreme Court have set restrictions on the scope of vicarious liability. In Barclays Bank v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 the test was whether the tortfeasor was in fact the ‘employee’ of the employer. The claimants alleged that they had suffered sexual abuse by a GP hired by the bank to carry out medical assessments of employees.’
Law Society's Gazette, 20th April 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The applicant in Hafeez is a sixty-year old man with a number of health conditions, including diabetes and asthma. He was arrested pursuant to a request by the US Government for his extradition on drugs charges. He challenges the decision to extradite him, arguing that his pre-conviction and post-conviction detention conditions in the US would be inhuman and degrading; and that there is a real risk that he would be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Alaina Wadsworth, Chris Horsefield and Ben Brown, who all work within the Insurance & Reinsurance Group at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court earlier this month, in the matter of Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13.’
UKSC Blog, 20th April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘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
‘The procedure by which a landlord may recover arrears of rent in relation to commercial premises was fundamentally changed several years ago. Chapter 2 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 abolished the common law right to distrain for arrears of rent, replacing it with the commercial rent arrears recovery procedure (‘CRAR’). But what has been the impact of this change on whether a landlord taking enforcement action to recover arrears waived his right to forfeiture of a lease?’
Tanfield Chambers, 9th April 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower disaster could resume in virtual form with evidence taken by Zoom videolink, its senior legal adviser has told bereaved people and survivors.’
The Guardian, 21st April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
High Court (Administrative Court)
Mallya v Government of India [2020] EWHC 924 (Admin) (20 April 2020)
High Court (Patents Court)
Akebia Therapeutics Inc v Fibrogen, Inc [2020] EWHC 866 (Pat) (20 April 2020)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Slade v Abbhi [2020] EHWC 935 (QB) (20 April 2020)
Bonsor v Bio Collectors Ltd [2020] EWHC 918 (QB) (20 April 2020)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘Many small to medium sized businesses will, thankfully, rarely be involved in litigation. As a result, they will have little experience of what is to follow once they commence a dispute resolution process regardless of the nature of that process. In many cases, disputes will be addressed via litigation[1]. In many instances the perceived wrong done by the other side will drive the dispute forward. It is only perhaps when some of the initial expectation of a quick positive trial outcome fades, whilst the pre-trial process winds on, that parties will wonder ‘should this have gone on for so long’ and/or ‘was there a quicker way to do this?’ Nevertheless, once litigation is commenced it takes on an energy of its own and many parties are able to see the case through to an initial judgment. Matters may thereafter get more complex as (further) fatigue potentially sets in.’
33 Bedford Row, 10th April 2020
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘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
‘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
‘Ironically, in terms of its timing, on the day the country went into lockdown, the Upper Tribunal took a decision which will have a significant impact for those seeking to challenge restrictions on their liberty under the Mental Health Act 1983. This case originated in Cornwall and the solicitors were Conroys Solicitors of Truro. Sally Daulton of Devon Chambers represented the patient before the First-tier Tribunal and obtained leave to appeal. Before the Upper Tribunal, the patient was represented by Robert Pezzani and Stephen Simblet QC of Garden Court Chambers’ Civil Liberties Team.’
Devon Chambers, April 2020
Source: www.devonchambers.co.uk
‘In practice it seems that many of the preliminary hearings that are taking place on what would have been the first day of a trial are simply being used to relist the final hearing. In some regions, cases are not being relisted until the summer of 2021.’
Cloisters, 20th April 2020
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Necessity is the mother of invention. Never has the English proverb been proved so true as with the rapid deployment of video link technology in the court system following the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and consequent reduction of in-person hearings. This post considers the developments applicable to extradition proceedings; the current arrangements for hearings, appeals and removal; and the potential impact of the pandemic on the bars to extradition and bail applications.’
6KBW College Hill, 7th April 2020
Source: blog.6kbw.com
‘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
‘Your world appeared to be collapsing. You had a good core business, but because of cash flow difficulties, you could not pay your debts as and when they fell due. You were then saved – or, at least, you thought you were- by a trading company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”), under which you are required to make regular monthly contributions of a certain amount. You thought that you would survive with the protection of your CVA – that is until Covid-19 struck. Now, as a non-essential business, you have been forced to close, albeit temporarily, by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (“the 2020 Regulations”). Alternatively, you are allowed to stay open, but because of Government Guidance about social distancing, you have had to reduce your workforce, or your workforce is much reduced because of sickness or self-isolation. Alternatively, for commercial, health and safety or other reasons, you have decided temporarily to close your business. All of this has stopped or reduced your turnover and as a result you are unable to meet the payment requirements of your CVA. Is it open, in these circumstances, for anyone to argue that the restrictions imposed on your business and your consequent failure to comply with your CVA have frustrated your CVA?’
Radcliffe Chambers, 15th April 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘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
‘Clinical negligence litigation continues apace as Simeon Maskrey QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, handed down Judgment last week in a clinical negligence birth injury case (severe neuro-disability consequent upon an acute near total hypoxic-ischaemic insult) following a two-week trial which concluded early last month. This case highlights the ever-increasing importance placed on a patient’s right to autonomy in the decision-making process and the need to ensure that any information provided, including as to the risks to themselves and their baby, is properly understood and appreciated (Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 1 considered).’
Park Square Barristers, 16th April 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘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
‘It is assumed that the reference to the ‘Hague Convention’ is to the Hague Service Convention, concluded as part of the Hague Conference on Private International Law in 1965 (“the Convention”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 7th April 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025