This Practice Note considers the application, scope and limitations of the changes to legislation and practice applied to businesses subject to licensing regimes introduced as part of the Government’s response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic through the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA 2020) and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/350 and subsequent amending legislation between 26 March 2020 and 3 July 2020. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No 2) (England) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/684 came into force on 4 July 2020 and revoked Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/350 and subsequent amendments save to the extent provided for in regulation 2(2) in relation to any offence committed under those regulations before 4 July 2020. This content remains relevant as reference point for those offences. These temporary provisions are designed to ensure the protection of public

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline An appeal by JD Sports plc against the Competition and Markets Authority’s decision of 6 May 2020 prohibiting the completed acquisition by JD Sports Fashion plc of Footasylum plc and the complete divestment of Footasylum plc (ie to unwind the transaction). Latest development On 13 November 2020, the CAT issued its judgment in which it dismissed arguments that the CMA erred in the manner in which it conducted its assessment of whether the transaction was likely to result in an SLC. However, the CAT partially upheld JD Sport Fashions plc’s appeal by quashing the CMA’s phase 2 decision in so far as its conclusions were based on the CMA’s assessment of the likely effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the: (i) the relevant markets; and (ii) merging parties and/or the merged entity; and (iii) competitive constraints likely to apply to the merging parties

How does the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak impact on transparency orders in the Court of Protection? Mr Justice Hayden issued guidance on remote hearings in the Court of Protection on 31 March 2020. In this guidance, Hayden J made it clear that transparency is central to the philosophy of the Court of Protection and, while it will be difficult to ensure that a Skype hearing is as accessible to the public as an ‘open court’, this does not mean that transparency can become a casualty of our present public health emergency. If anything, the present emergency enhances the need for continuing press scrutiny, representing, as it does, the conduit by which we preserve the fundamental right of freedom of expression. Having said this, the provisions of Practice Direction 4C: Transparency

At present, HM Courts and Tribunals Service have confirmed that, generally, the business of the courts and tribunals is continuing. The guidance is that as long as court users do not have confirmed or possible coronavirus (COVID-19) infection or do not need to self-isolate in line with the National Health Service advice, they should continue to use the courts as usual. In the event that they are unable to attend either due to illness or the need to self-isolate, they should contact the court. Can the hearing proceed in the person’s absence? The first point to consider is whether the hearing can proceed without whoever is unable to attend. Depending on the notice given, it may be possible to find alternative counsel or to set up telephone/video-conferencing arrangements, which is something that has been advocated by the Lord Chief Justice. For further guidance, see Practice Notes: • Remote and hybrid hearings

The Home Office and UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) have released guidance on immigration provisions for individuals affected by travel restrictions associated with coronavirus (COVID-19). It can be seen from this guidance that some exceptions can be made in the case of Tier 2 visas (as well as Tier 4 and Tier 5) for periods of absence from work as a result of coronavirus. Separately, the Joint Council

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). Methods of service under the Convention The first point to note is that where the Convention is applicable, service must be effected in accordance with its provisions, and it is not possible to circumvent this procedure through an order for alternative service from the courts of this country, or by other means (Cecil v Bayat); that this is mandatory in all cases and not merely in the nature of guidance is confirmed by the approach of the High Court in relation to Regulation (EC) 1393/2007, the Service Regulation in Hornan v Baillie. The primary method of service under the Convention is for the serving party to send

Coronavirus (COVID-19): the coronavirus pandemic has caused the UK to expedite new insolvency provisions, both of a temporary and permanent nature. For news and guidance as to the implications from a property perspective see: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—implications for property — Property Insolvency. 1 [insert name of relevant party] [(in [administrative receivership [and also in] ] [liquidation OR administration])] of [insert address] [incorporated in England and Wales with company registration number [insert company registration number]] ([insert party definition eg ‘Seller’’]) acting by [any one of] [ insert one of the following: ] [ [If a receiver:] the [joint] [receiver[s] of the Property], [insert name of [first] receiver] of [insert address] [and [insert name of second receiver] of [insert address]] ([Receiver OR Receivers]) OR [If

On 24 February 2021 the Chartered Governance Institute (CGI) issued updated guidance (2021 Guidance) which anticipated that for the duration of the governmental restrictions, general meetings and AGMs would be required to be held on a closed basis until at least 17 May 2021 and possibly until at least 21 June 2021. The 2021 Guidance was produced by a working group comprising, along with the CGI, the City of London Law Society Company Law Committee and Martin Moore QC, with the support of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Financial Reporting Council (FRC). It was also supported by

The UK Covid-19 Inquiry has announced that it has opened the Inquiry’s eighth investigation (Module 8) examining the impact of the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic on children and young people. The Core Participant application window will be open from 21 May to 17 June 2024. The Inquiry has also announced that Module 9 will focus on the economic response to the Coronavirus pandemic. This investigation will open in July 2024. The Inquiry has also said that a further investigation is expected to be announced in the Autumn of 2024 which will explore the impact of the pandemic in various ways, including on the mental health and wellbeing of the population.

Background to the Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction Supporting the Insolvency Practice Direction The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented social distancing measures and lockdowns. This in turn has had a significant impact on the ability of the courts, and court users, to carry out their normal functions. In response, the courts are operating under new protocols and procedures—see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—Changes to the court process in insolvency proceedings [Archived]. To supplement these changes, and in order to deal with specific challenges relevant to insolvency proceedings, a Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction (TIPD) was introduced on 6 April 2020. This expired and was replaced by further versions of TIPD (in the same form), with the most recent version being introduced on 30 June 2021. That version expired on 30 September 2021 and has been replaced by a new temporary insolvency practice direction supporting the insolvency practice direction (MIPD 2021). For further details on the original TIPD, see Practice Note: The Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction (6 April

CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 353/21, C- 321/21 and C- 320/21 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 14 April 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Cases T- 378/20 Ryanair v Commission, T- 379/20 Ryanair v Commission and T- 388/20 Ryanair v Commission—actions for annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decisions of 15 April 2020, 24 April and 18 May 2020 approving three State aid measures in Denmark, Sweden and Finland respectively to support airlines in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic (Cases SA.56795, SA.57601 and SA.56809). Latest developments On 14 April 2021, the General Court issued three judgments in which it dismissed each of Ryanair’s appeals in their entirety. In relation to the Danish and Swedish aid measures for SAS, the General Court held that: (i) the Commission was entitled to rely on Article 107(2)(b) to

1 Introduction 1.1 This policy sets out the Company’s homeworking arrangements that may be implemented from time to time on a temporary basis in response to government recommendations and requirements in relation to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. 1.2 These homeworking arrangements are exceptional and their implementation does not guarantee any right to work from home indefinitely. 1.3 [ [For details of our policy in relation to homeworking on a regular full-time or part-time basis, see our [Homeworking policy].] [For details of our policy on hybrid working, where staff attend the workplace for part of their working time and work from home or another suitable remote location for part of their working time, see our [Hybrid working policy]. ] [Where an employee is making a request for home or hybrid working that constitutes a statutory flexible working request, it will be dealt with under our [Flexible working policy].] ] 1.4 This policy applies to all employees, workers and contractors. 1.5 This policy does not form part of any contract of employment and the Company may amend it at any time. 2 Homeworking 2.1 ‘Homeworking’ for these purposes means working from your home, or another suitable