If a child or adult has tested positive for coronavirus (COVID-19), has come into close contact with someone with coronavirus, or travelled back to the UK from a country where self-isolation upon return is required, then the child or adult must self-isolate. Parents or guardians are legally responsible for ensuring that anyone under 18 self-isolates in these circumstances. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/1045, reg 2 states that when someone self-isolates, they must remain in their home, or the home of a friend or family member, or bed and breakfast accommodation, accommodation provided or arranged under sections 4, 95 or 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or some other suitable place. There is no specific provision permitting a child to

When addressing this question, it will be relevant to consider: • current public health guidance • the nature of the duty to make reasonable adjustments • what adjustments are required • the question of furlough as a reasonable adjustment Public health guidance for clinically extremely vulnerable individuals to shield during the coronavirus pandemic Under the national lockdown restrictions that apply in England from 5 November–2 December 2020, individuals who have been identified as clinically extremely vulnerable have been strongly advised to shield, ie: • to work from home, and • if they cannot work from home, not to attend work while the lockdown restrictions are in place Those who cannot work from home may, subject to eligibility, be able to claim Statutory

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 November 2020; it is no longer maintained.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

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Introduction We are facing a new life-threatening virus, rapidly spreading on a global scale, for which there is currently no effective treatment or vaccine. Thankfully, this crisis has been met by an explosion of innovation and new product development, supported by incredible generosity from pharmaceutical and medical device companies that are pooling their resources, making accessible their relevant intellectual property (IP) and supplying products for free or at cost. While the unprecedented sharing of IP is highly commendable to combat the pandemic, companies should be mindful of the manner in which their IP is protected and shared to avoid potentially adverse consequences to their IP rights and sustainable product development in the longer term. Companies will also need to be aware that some governments are considering extreme measures such as the use of compulsory licensing to allow third parties to use new technologies while avoiding patent infringement. This is

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

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

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

This Practice Note considers force majeure as it applies in English law and the circumstances in which a force majeure event may cause a contract to come to an end, including burden of proof, interpretation of force majeure clauses (operative verb), procedural requirements and challenging the validity of a force majeure clause. See also Practice Notes: • Force majeure clause analysis—a practical guide • Force majeure—key and illustrative decisions For assistance when giving notice of a force majeure event, see Precedent: Force majeure notice. Force majeure clauses were thrust under the microscope in light of ‘world events’, such as the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The 2026 Middle East conflict will likely give rise to more disputes involving force majeure issues, on which see: Force majeure and world events below. Force majeure—meaning and nature The key features of force majeure are: • a 'force majeure clause' is a contractual term providing for one (or both) parties to be excused from performance on the happening of a specified event

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