ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 (CR(C)A 2022) continues and extends the protections given to commercial tenants during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It does this by ringfencing rent and service charge debts accrued during the period when premises were required to close, and establishing a statutory arbitration process under which the debts may be reduced or payment deferred. It also imposes a moratorium on landlord remedies in order to protect tenants while the arbitration process takes place. The key provisions of CR(C)A 2022 and the government’s accompanying Commercial rent code of practice following the COVID-19 pandemic (the Code), are set out below. The government has also issued statutory guidance on the terms of the Act. The deadline for starting an arbitration has now ended, and with it the moratorium on landlord remedies in cases where no reference has been made. The moratorium remains in place for arrears that were referred to arbitration in time (see Moratorium

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.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.

Tax analysis: In Raystra Healthcare Ltd, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) found that claims under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme must fail where the employees in question had not been included in a real-time information (RTI) return before the relevant deadline. The rules were clear and there was no discretion to make exceptions.

Why are material adverse change (MAC) clauses in the spotlight? The coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak has already caused some businesses to fail and financial distress to many others. Governments and regulators are urging lenders to be supportive of businesses, especially those that are, the outbreak aside, financially sound. However, lenders will still be looking to review their finance documentation and ascertain their rights at an early stage. Facility agreements typically include a list of events of default. Breach of any of these by the borrower will give the lender(s) the right to exercise certain rights under the facilities agreement, such as accelerating the loan (ie demanding early repayment) or enforcing security. An event of default can also have other consequences under the finance documentation, such as: • giving the lender the right not to lend any further amounts under the facility agreement (known as a drawstop), and • enabling the lender to transfer commitments without needing the consent of the borrower Most importantly, even where the

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

UPDATE (29/3/21): The Cabinet Office published on 29 March 2021 new guidance on what you can and cannot do, which sets out the changes that took place in England on that date. The Cabinet Office: National lockdown: Stay at Home guidance has been taken down. See: LNB News 29/03/2021 43. This Practice Note will be updated shortly to reflect these changes. UPDATE (29/3/21): The Department of Health and Social Care announced on 28 March 2021 that, as part of its free workplace coronavirus (COVID-19) testing programme, employers will have the opportunity to offer rapid home testing to their employees. Further information on the employer testing duty can be found here. See: LNB News 29/03/2021 34. This Practice Note will be updated shortly to reflect these changes. UPDATE (23/3/21): The Department of Health and Social Care announced on 22 March 2021 the publication of a new set of regulations, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021, SI 2021/364, which set out the steps

The HMRC Policy paper: Changes to the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme from July 2021 to which you refer states that, from 1 July 2021, the level of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) grant will be reduced and employers will be asked to contribute towards the cost of their furloughed employees’ wages. To be eligible for the grant, the employer must continue to pay its furloughed employees 80% of their wages, up to a cap of £2,500 per month for the time they spend on furlough. As set out in the table in

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: The Supreme Court held that payments received under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) fall within standard ‘savings’ clauses in business interruption policies and must be deducted from the indemnity. Construing ‘reduction’ as a matter of factual economic effect, the court found that wage costs were reduced notwithstanding the insureds’ continuing liability to pay employees. It further held that CJRS payments were proximately caused by the insured peril and were not collateral benefits, rejecting arguments based on voluntariness or benevolence. The decision confirms insurers’ entitlement to deduct such payments and provides authoritative guidance on the treatment of third-party payments, reinforcing core indemnity principles and limiting over-indemnification. Produced in partnership with Josephine Higgs KC of 7 King’s Bench Walk.

By operation of law in the UK, most sorts of intellectual property (IP) rights created by employees in the course of their duties belong to the employer. This is reversed in relation to moral rights in artistic works, such as books, music or art, which belong to the employee unless the contract states otherwise. This means that the employee will have the right to be identified as the creator of the work and to object to it being distorted, but will not have any economic rights. This position arises pursuant to the relevant statutes governing that particular area of IP. For example, the general rule under section 11(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) is that the author of a work is the first owner of any copyright

During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, many employees have been working from home either: • during lockdown periods, as a result of the legal prohibition on leaving home unless an exception applies, eg it is reasonably necessary for them to leave or be outside the home for the purposes of work • at other times, as a result of government guidance, eg that everyone should work from home if they can For further information, see: • Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—national lockdown restrictions 6 January to 28 March 2021 [Archived], in particular section: Working from home or in the workplace • Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—managing the workplace to 18 July 2021 [Archived], in particular section: Where employees should work In addition, as set out in the BEIS Working safely guidance (see eg the Offices and contact centres guidance),

Law360: An Italian reinsurer has lost its challenge against French insurer Covéa Insurance Plc's coronavirus business interruption (BI) claim, with a London appellate court on 30 September 2024 upholding findings that the pandemic met the definition of 'catastrophe' used in the policy.

At present, no measures have been enacted specifically to deal with swearing affidavits in circumstances where the deponent and the officer administering the oath are required to avoid unnecessary social contact. However, the Law Society will be providing guidance on this issue imminently. Since publication of this Q&A, the Law Society has published: Our position on the use of virtual execution and e-signature during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Thought should be given, in the first instance, to whether a sworn affidavit is strictly necessary. The court has a general power to control evidence and could exceptionally dispense with an affidavit (where it might otherwise be required) in favour of a witness statement: CPR 32.1(1)(b) and (c). A party could also apply for permission to rely on a ‘defective’ affidavit: CPR PD 32, para 25. Depending