For information: • on furloughing under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) generally, see Practice Note: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (original version to 30 June 2020) [Archived] • on the restrictions on hours of work and working time under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833 generally, see Practice Note: Hours of work and working time A worker who has been furloughed under the CJRS is not permitted to carry out any work, whether at night time or otherwise; the Treasury Direction provides that an employee is a furloughed employee if the employee has been instructed by the employer to ‘cease all work in relation to their employment’ and that ‘an employee has not ceased all work for an employer if the employee works for a person connected with the employer…or otherwise works indirectly for the employer’. The HMRC employer guidance provides that when an employee

For information on workplace issues in light of the fast-changing position in relation to coronavirus (COVID-19), see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—issues for employers [Archived]. For information on the doctrine of frustration generally, see: • Practice Note: Distinguishing dismissal from other forms of termination, in particular the section titled: Operation of law, including frustration • Harvey AII[402]–[406.02]: Frustration The doctrine of frustration is one instance of termination by operation of law: where, without the fault of either party, some supervening event occurs which was not reasonably foreseeable at the time when the contract was made, and which renders further performance of the contract either totally impossible or something radically different from what the parties bargained for, then the contract is forthwith discharged by operation of law. The superseding event must be one that was unforeseen and not catered for in the contract. The precise terms of each contract must therefore be considered in order to ascertain which circumstances were, or

The Acas guidance for employers and employees on coronavirus (COVID-19) is silent as to how disciplinary meetings should be dealt with during the coronavirus lockdown. However, where employees are not currently attending the workplace it does say that, if an employee refuses to attend work without a valid reason, this could result in disciplinary action. The response below refers in a number of places to the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (Acas Code) and guidance on discipline and grievances at work. For information on the significance of the Acas Code, see Practice Note: Acas disciplinary and grievance code—application. What can an employee do if the employer insists on proceeding with a disciplinary hearing during the Coronavirus lockdown, either remotely or by attendance at a neutral place? The

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: In the latest coronavirus (COVID-19) business interruption decision, the Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in International Entertainment Holdings Ltd and others v Allianz Insurance plc (‘IEH’). This case will be of particular interest to policyholders with ‘policing authority’ or ‘incident’ wordings. The main issue in the appeal concerned whether coronavirus amounted to an ‘incident’, and whether central government or the Secretary of State for Health could be construed as a ‘policing authority’. The judgment also provides helpful commentary on issues often arising in policyholder disputes with insurers, such as the application of the policy sub-limit and the circumstances in which courts will be willing to correct obvious mistakes. Written by Harriet Thurstan, associate at Covington & Burling LLP.

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

Corporate analysis: This analysis considers the initial impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis on a sample of FTSE 350 and AIM 50 companies issuing an AGM notice between 27 March and 15 April 2020.

Shops The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/350, Sch 2 lists essential businesses including food retailers, pharmacies etc which were permitted to open between 23 March and 14 June 2020. Restrictions have now been removed. This designation did not include service businesses, ie accountants or law firms. The

With some exceptions (eg in the building trade), it is customary for the employer to provide an employee with the equipment necessary to do their job (as opposed to a self-employed person who is usually expected to provide their own equipment). There are no particular statutory provisions relating to the provision of equipment to an employee who is homeworking. See Precedents: Policy—homeworking and Policy—temporary homeworking arrangements [Archived]. Paragraph 4 of Precedent: Policy—homeworking provides that the employer will provide all necessary equipment to a designated homeworker,

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information only. This Practice Note considers the extended version of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) that applied between 1 November 2020 and 30 April 2021, referred to in this Practice Note as the ‘extended CJRS’ or the ‘CJRS extension’. For information on the extended CJRS from 1 May 2021, see Practice Note: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (extended version 1 May to 30 September 2021) [Archived]. The background to the extended CJRS is as follows: Date Details Government information published News Analysis 31 October 2020 HM Treasury announced an extension throughout November 2020 of the CJRS, with a corresponding postponement of the start of the Job Support Scheme Furlough Scheme Extended and Further Economic Support announced Employment aspects of the new coronavirus lockdown and the extension of the CJRS (2/11/20) 2 November 2020 Announcement that extended CJRS will run until 2 December 2020 HMRC Help and Support bulletin, 3 November 2020

This Q&A considers whether you can file and serve costs budgets via email in light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This Q&A is based on the rules in force on 1 October 2020. For guidance on the position under the rules in force during the pandemic prior to this date, see Q&A: Can I file and serve a costs budget by email in light of coronavirus (COVID-19)? The obligation on the parties under CPR 3.13 is to ‘file and exchange’ budgets by the stated time. The rules use ‘exchange’ here rather than serve. This tends to suggest that the usual rules relating to service found in Part 6 of the CPR do not apply to cost budgets. Some caution should be adopted in relation to this approach,

As a result of coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, investment funds have faced challenges both operationally and as a result of significantly increased volatility in global markets. The pandemic, in combination with high volatility and inherent valuation issues that it has triggered, has led to large market corrections and a deterioration of liquidity risks, which in turn has prompted stress in different parts of the financial system, including in some segments of the investment fund sector. These issues are summarised in a joint committee report on risks and vulnerabilities in the EU financial system, which was published by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the other European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) in September 2020. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published guidance setting out its expectations regarding funds in light of coronavirus. While it acknowledges the significant challenges firms are facing in the current environment, it nevertheless expects them to continue to uphold the best interest of their investors at all times. ESMA and the Investment Association (IA) have also published guidance, and

Law360: Some £1.84bn (US$2.32bn) of UK government-backed coronavirus (COVID-19) loans granted to help businesses through the pandemic are suspected to be fraudulent, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) said 29 February 2024.