Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: On 7 April 2020, the Singapore Government passed under a Certificate of Urgency the coronavirus (COVID-19) (Temporary Measures) Bill (Bill) in Parliament, in an effort to offer temporary relief to businesses and individuals who are unable to fulfil their contractual obligations due to coronavirus (COVID-19). The temporary relief granted is in five areas—(1) inability to perform contracts (2) financially distressed individuals, firms and businesses (3) conduct of meetings (4) court proceedings, and (5) remission of property tax. Written by Catherine Shen of the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI).

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note contains a collection of content covering the outbreak of coronavirus (COVID-19) for technology, media and telecommunications (TMT) lawyers. It is updated regularly and includes links to: • Q&As • Practice Notes, Precedents and Checklists • Updates and news Court of Justice This Practice Note refers to judgments from the Court of Justice. For guidance on whether judgments of the Court of Justice are binding on UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law—Assimilated case law. Q&As • How can I ensure my organisation and staff stay safe while using video-conferencing during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic? • What technology risks are associated with homeworking? • Can an agreement be terminated for frustration due to coronavirus (COVID-19)? • Will our insurance cover us for coronavirus (Covid-19)? • Can my force majeure clause protect me against the economic impact of coronavirus (COVID-19)? • Can I rely on ‘Certificates of Force Majeure’ issued by the Chinese government confirming that coronavirus (COVID-19) is force majeure as a force majeure event under English law?

This Practice Note examines some of the key issues affecting construction contracts as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and how these issues can be dealt with in both existing contracts that have already been executed and in contracts being negotiated. The coronavirus pandemic and resulting lockdown, restrictions and requirements for social distancing also give rise to some practical issues that need to be considered, including in relation to execution of documents. Existing contracts Contracts that were entered into before the pandemic started are likely to have some disadvantages in comparison to contracts entered into following the onset of the pandemic. This is because it is unlikely in the majority of cases that specific clauses were included in these contracts dealing with what happens when a pandemic affects the carrying out of the works (and the effect the coronavirus has had would have been very difficult to predict). The parties who entered into contracts before the coronavirus therefore have to rely on what, if anything, the existing contract terms say (or how they can be interpreted)

This Checklist sets out some of the key issues to consider when a party is unable to comply with its contractual obligations due to the impact of coronavirus (COVID-19)—eg to proceed with/complete works under a construction contract, or supply goods or services under a supply contract (or series of supply contracts). Commercial considerations, shared objectives and collaboration will also play a key role in ensuring that parties are able to mitigate the impact of coronavirus on their staff and business, in challenging times and where neither party is at fault. Force majeure Force majeure is a term used to describe an event that is beyond the control of the parties, and which prevents them from fulfilling their contractual obligations: Triggering force majeure • check to see whether your contract contains force majeure provisions or provisions with a similar effect. Note that: ◦ the term ‘force majeure’ may not necessarily be used in the contract, eg the FIDIC 2017 standard form construction contracts use the term ‘Exceptional Event’ ◦ force majeure provisions may be set out in a standalone clause

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note discusses some of the key considerations and implications for IP practitioners during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It also includes a table containing an archive of news items on coronavirus and coronavirus developments that relate to IP. For a discussion about the impact of the pandemic on IP strategy and practice, see News Analysis: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—the impact on IP strategy and practice. IP deadlines and procedures In light of the coronavirus pandemic and associated guidance on social distancing, offices were closed and some postal services suspended. In response to such measures, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO), World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO), European Patent Office (EPO) and EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) announced changes to various IP deadlines and procedures. These announcements are tracked in the IP coronavirus tracker below and the IPO, WIPO, EPO and EUIPO have created dedicated and maintained coronavirus pages. Due to the fast-paced nature of the coronavirus crisis, it is essential to check these sites

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note, which explains the ways in which the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic affected the conduct and procedure of the tax tribunals, is up to date as at 1 October 2021, is not maintained and is for background information only. For more information, see: Disputes with HMRC: appeals—overview and Practice Note: Appealing an HMRC decision. Appeals and applications to the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal were both significantly affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This guidance summarises the situation as at 1 October 2021. During the pandemic, the position was constantly changing. The Ministry of Justice provided regular updates and it remains advisable to check the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website for the most up-to-date position. The Ministry of Justice published a webpage collating coronavirus advice and guidance. This includes ‘pilot’ practice directions, announcements and guidance. These practice directions are described as ‘pilot’ because they were introduced to deal with problems caused by the coronavirus-related restrictions, including lockdowns. Most of these practice

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: The High Court’s decision in the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) coronavirus (COVID-19) business interruption (BI) test case will be published on 15 September 2020. The decision is widely expected to be appealed, whatever the High Court decides. Accordingly, the wait for the legal certainty needed to adjust and settle valid coronavirus BI claims is set to continue for several months yet. Pamela Freeland of Weightmans and the Lexis®PSL Insurance & Reinsurance team consider the implications of this impasse for coronavirus BI claims advanced in other forums, such as the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), arbitration or separate actions in the County Court and the High Court—all the time while the coronavirus saga continues to unfold and produce new conundrums, such as the gradual withdrawal of government support through the coronavirus job retention scheme. We also take a step back and consider the essence of the parties’ respective positions on the critical issue of causation, and the implications that the courts’ final reckoning on the issue might have for insurance law.

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: What news from the world of coronavirus (COVID-19) Business Interruption Insurance? Well, since you ask, this is the latest in a string of decisions that inch their way towards working out who is entitled to how much under what policy terms in respect of the enormous business losses that were suffered during the coronavirus lockdowns in the UK. The court was here dealing with a common Prevention of Access (Non-Damage) wording providing cover for interference with the insured’s business in consequence of action ‘by the Police or other Statutory Authority’. The principal questions involved the application of policy limits, whether renewal of restrictions gave rise to a new claim, and whether insurers could deduct from the indemnity payments received under the furlough scheme. Written by Neil Hext KC, barrister at 4 New Square Chambers.

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: Does a disease clause that requires physical damage make sense? Bellini is a restaurant in Sunderland that was closed as a result of the Covid lock-down. It had a licensed premises policy with business interruption cover that apparently included an extension for ‘Murder, suicide or disease’. But its claim was denied because the clause required there to have been ‘damage’, defined as ‘physical loss, physical damage and physical destruction’. The Commercial Court held that that was right, and that result has now been upheld by the Court of Appeal. The case concerns the limits of the ability of the court to correct what are alleged to be obvious mistakes in an insurance policy–and revisits the question of illusory cover, one of the reasons given by the Supreme Court in FCA v Arch for taking an expansive approach to causation, but with a somewhat different result. Written by Neil Hext KC, barrister at 4 New Square Chambers.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note aims to assist dispute resolution practitioners trying to keep up-to-date with and understand the implications of the fast-moving developments relating to the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak on the processes and procedures in the civil courts of England and Wales. It contains a number of frequently asked questions (FAQs) arranged by relevant topics. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: • Coronavirus (COVID-19) implications for dispute resolution [Archived] • Coronavirus (COVID-19) civil court specific guidance—dispute resolution [Archived] Attending court during coronavirus See Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19) implications for dispute resolution [Archived]—Attending court. Q&As • Coronavirus (COVID-19)—what are the arrangements for contacting courts which are now ‘temporarily suspended’ but which were dealing with ongoing and/or urgent applications? • A key witness (factual and/or expert)/counsel/instructing solicitor is unable/unwilling to travel to and/or attend court due to the risk of coronavirus (COVID-19), what steps should we take? • The court is closed and/or understaffed due to coronavirus (COVID-19). What should we do where, for example

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note focuses on the implications for dispute resolution in the light of temporary rules introduced in the context of coronavirus (COVID-19). This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19) implications for dispute resolution [Archived]. This Practice Note aims to assist dispute resolution practitioners seeking to understand the fast-moving changes to civil court processes and procedures during this time and the implications those changes and this pandemic may have on their practice and individual matters. It contains civil court specific guidance that has been issued in response to the coronavirus pandemic, all of which can be easily accessed using the ‘jump-links’ in the expandable table of contents in the left-hand margin of this Practice Note. As most courts and tribunal buildings are now open in line with public health advice, practitioners are referred to the Gov.uk ‘Find a court or tribunal’ service for the current status and contact details of courts and tribunals.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note provides a summary of selected employment cases on coronavirus (COVID-19) matters that have come to the attention of the Lexis+® UK Employment team, intended to give a flavour of the types of cases that are being heard and an indication of the approach being taken by tribunals and at an appellate level. It is not an exhaustive list of all pertinent cases. Note that employment tribunal decisions are first instance decisions that are not binding on other tribunals. As tribunals will assess cases based on the prevailing pandemic conditions and the guidance in place at the relevant time, cases on similar facts to those noted below could be decided differently if they were before a tribunal now. For cases that are appealed, see Practice Note: Case tracker—Employment. The legal context For general information on the issues facing employers in relation to coronavirus, see Practice Notes: • Health and safety—protection from detriment and dismissal • Living with coronavirus (COVID-19) in the workplace from 24 February