Practical implications of specifying offences under the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/350 Specified offences are those which the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) does not have a duty to take over conduct of under section 3 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (POA 1985). In practical terms this means that, provided the accused is aged 16 or over, the prosecution of offences under the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/350 (Regulations) can be led directly by the police, without involving the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), as is the case with certain low-level traffic offences. In addition, it should be noted that where the DPP’s duty to take over the conduct of proceedings does not apply, the right to bring a private

The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR), SI 2013/1471 sets out a scheme by which various deaths, injuries and occupational diseases which occur in the workplace are to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The purpose of RIDDOR is to enable the HSE to ascertain where and how risks arise in the workplace and whether they need to be investigated. With certain limited exceptions, health and safety legislation applies to all ‘employers’ and ‘undertakings’ regardless of where work is conducted. As employers and undertakings have sought to follow Government guidance on ‘Guidance for employers and businesses on coronavirus (COVID-19)’, many people have now been instructed to work from home wherever possible. For these people, the home has now become the ‘workplace’—health and safety legislation continues to apply to those working from home. For the purpose of this Q&A, in order to be reportable under RIDDOR the incident must be: • a ‘work-related accident

One of the temporary changes introduced by the government in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is that those who are required to self-isolate are potentially deemed incapable of working and therefore entitled to statutory sick pay (SSP). However, the answer to the question whether a worker is entitled to receive SSP if they self-isolate in response to an alert from the NHS COVID-19 app remains unclear, as explained below. According to the Public Health England (PHE): guidance for contacts of people with confirmed coronavirus (COVID-19) infection who do not live with the person, contacts who need to self-isolate will usually be notified and advised to do so by the NHS Test and Trace, including

Law360: A group of underwriters and insurance companies have denied they owe at least US$90m claimed by a Lloyd's of London syndicate to cover coronavirus (COVID-19) losses, arguing they have met their obligations, having already paid out around US$26.6m.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is causing severe difficulties in the operation of the court estate. As of 27 March 2020, HMCTS confirmed that the work of courts and tribunals would be consolidated into fewer buildings, with 157 priority court and tribunal buildings open for essential face-to-face hearings. The Courts and Tribunals Tracker sets out which buildings are open. There are three categories of court: open courts, which are open to the public; staffed courts, where staff and judges continue to work from the buildings but they are not open to the public; and suspended courts, which are temporarily closed. There appears to be no available guidance

The government published two sets of guidance on the coronavirus job retention scheme (CJRS) on 26 March 2020: • guidance for employers: Claim for wage costs through the coronavirus job retention scheme, and • guidance for employees: Check if you could be covered by the coronavirus job retention scheme These were updated on 4 April, 9 April and 15 April, and on 15 April the government also published a Treasury Direction. For further information, see: • HMRC publishes updated employer and employee guidance on Coronavirus (COVID-19) job retention scheme • HMRC publishes second update to employer and employee guidance on Coronavirus (COVID-19) Job Retention Scheme, and • Treasury gives legal effect to Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and updates guidance a third time A woman who takes ordinary maternity

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

Responding to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is impacting government priorities across Europe and beyond. In light of COVID-19 developments and associated guidance on social distancing, UK and EU negotiating teams involved in the talks on the future relationship and Withdrawal Agreement implementation are not meeting in person in accordance with the original terms of reference, but they remain in regular contact to find alternative ways of continuing the discussions. Both the EU chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, and UK chief negotiator, David Frost, have been in isolation due to COVID-19 and were reported to have not met since the first round of talks. The UK government has acknowledged the impact of COVID-19 on immediate priorities, but still aims to review progress in the future relationship talks in June 2020 and is sticking to the December 2020 deadline for ending the transitional arrangements. The government has repeatedly restated its commitment to the current transition timetable and insists that it will not agree to any extension to the transition/implementation period under

Law360: A London court has allowed insurers to make claims under reinsurance contracts for business interruption losses claimed during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, saying that the outbreak of an infectious disease constitutes a 'catastrophe' under the policy wording.

While there is no specific primary legislation in relation to the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS), section 75 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA 2020) disapplies section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, permitting the

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is an unforeseen global event that has had significant ramifications for society and the economy. Family practitioners are once again debating, as they did in the wake of the 2007-2008 global financial crisis, whether an event of such magnitude is likely to constitute a ‘Barder event’ in financial remedy proceedings before the courts of England and Wales. This Practice Note re-examines that question at this turbulent and unprecedented juncture. It also considers alternative mechanisms for revisiting financial orders, the Re Barrell and Thwaite jurisdictions, as well as the civil law concept of frustration. Barder applications If after a full hearing an aggrieved party complains that the judge fell into error, the appropriate avenue for challenging the order is by way of appeal. If, however, the complaint is not that the judge fell into error but rather relates to an unforeseen event or events that have occurred since the order was made, which fundamentally changes a central aspect of that order, then a so-called

Law360, London: A man who pretended he was forced to cancel 14 holidays because of coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions so he could claim more than £61,000 in insurance payouts has been sentenced at a London court to two years in prison, suspended for 18 months.