As a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, over the coming weeks and months an increasing number of UK companies are expected to seek to preserve their cash by suspending and/or cancelling dividends. This Q&A considers the relevant law, guidance and practice. For information on dividends generally, see Practice Notes: Dividends—the legal framework and Distributions. For further details of the rules and guidance that apply to a listed company or an AIM company proposing to pay a dividend, see Practice Note: Dividends—listed and AIM companies. Declaration of dividends It is usual for a company's articles of association to provide that: • its directors may recommend a final dividend (ie one to be paid after the financial year to which the profits being distributed relate), which is then declared by the approval of the shareholders, usually by ordinary resolution, the amount declared not exceeding the amount recommended by the directors, and • its directors may decide to pay an interim dividend (ie one to be paid during

This Q&A considers whether it is possible to delay publishing your organisation’s annual slavery and human trafficking statement as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It also suggests some particular areas of modern slavery risk that may need to be addressed by your organisation and reflected in your statement. Slavery and human trafficking statements Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA 2015) requires certain organisations to produce and publish an annual slavery and human trafficking statement. The statement must set out: • the steps you have taken during the financial year to ensure slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in any part of your supply chains or your own business, or • that you have taken no such steps The statement must be approved by, eg the board of directors of a company or the members of an LLP, and signed by an appropriate

Tenancies at will Section 82 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA 2020) applies to ‘relevant business tenancies’ which are defined at CA 2020, s 82(12) as tenancies which fall within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) or which would do if the lawful occupier was treated as the tenant. Accordingly, it is arguable that the provisions do not apply to tenancies excluded from LTA 1954, s 43. This includes tenancies at will, which do not fall within LTA 1954 on the basis that

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: We look at the reforms to the insolvency law of China prompted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Written by Xiahong Chen, fellow of Bankruptcy Law and Enterprise Restructuring of Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law; Member of INSOL, INSOL Europe and ABI.

The answer depends entirely on the contract between the parties. Standard form contracts provide for the granting of extensions of time and these usually include a provision for force majeure which would include the effects of coronavirus (COVID-19). The JCT standard forms of building contract contain an extension of time provision which defines the contractor’s entitlement to an extension of time by reference to ‘relevant events’. The definition of relevant events includes ‘force majeure’. The JCT standard forms do not contain a definition of force majeure, therefore, it is necessary to consider the common law position as it pertains to frustration. In Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC, the House of Lords gave what is now regarded as the classic definition of the doctrine when it said that frustration: ‘…occurs wherever the law recognises that without default of either party a contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed because the circumstances in which performance is called

Personal Injury & Clinical Negligence analysis: Summary judgment was given for the defendant in four claims brought by its employees who alleged that they contracted coronavirus while at work at the defendant’s factory in June 2020. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the court found that even if the claimants could prove breach of duty by the defendant, they faced an impossible task in proving a causal link between a breach of duty and contracting coronavirus. At that time coronavirus was everywhere, not just in the factory, and the claimants had not been able to serve any medical or other expert evidence to establish a causal link. Further, the court was not prepared to extend the Fairchild exception to the causation rules to include the risks of contracting coronavirus. Written by Jasmine Murphy, barrister, at Gatehouse Chambers.

Law360, Expert analysis: On 26 January 2024, in a pro-policyholder coronavirus business interruption (BI) insurance test case, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales handed down its decision in Gatwick Investment Ltd v Liberty Mutual Insurance on key questions relating to whether certain prevention of access, non-damage clauses in a BI policy responded to coronavirus-related loss. Josianne El Antoury, special counsel, and Greg Lascelles, partner, at Covington & Burling LLP outline the key questions that the High Court considered, its findings in respect of each question and analyse the decision for policyholders.

What issues might arise? Businesses who manufacture products using chemicals managed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) may be experiencing disruptions to their normal working schedules due to staff and resources shortages. ECHA acknowledges that in these circumstances timely compliance with its decisions may not be possible. The supply of disinfectants, which are biocidal products regulated by the ECHA, has also been affected due to increased demand for such cleaning agents. How is ECHA responding? The normal functioning of ECHA has been disrupted as a result of restrictions set by national governments to help contain the spread of the virus. According to the chemical and safety regulatory intelligence network Chemical Watch, all ECHA meetings with external participants from abroad are being held remotely or cancelled ‘until further notice’. The European Commission conference on alternatives to animal testing originally due to run from 12–13 May 2020 has also been rescheduled. ECHA has been publishing information on its response to the current situation (COVID-19) to thededicated

Law360: An English appellate court has dismissed Allianz's bid to reduce a £16m payout for coronavirus (COVID-19) business disruption to a British restaurant chain, ruling on 16 January 2024 that the outbreak in China was too remote to have caused the losses.

On 23 October 2020, the Chair of the Local Government Association’s (LGA) Safer and Stronger Communities Board, Nesil Caliskan, made a statement on the tools councils should have to mitigate the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19). Caliskan felt that councils should be able to take ‘rapid action’ against businesses failing to implement safety measures, and he ‘look[s] forward to hearing more details…over the coming days’. See: LGA seeks tools to combat businesses

View from the bar on serving claim forms during coronavirus (COVID-19). Chris Bryden, 4 King’s Bench Walk CPR 6 sets out the rules relating to service of a claim form. By CPR 6.3, a claim form may be served personally, by first class post, document exchange or any other service which provides for delivery on the next business day, by leaving it in a place as specified in the part, by fax or other means of electronic communication or any method authorised by the court. CPR 6.14 provides that a claim form served within the UK in accordance with CPR 6 is deemed to be served on the second business day after completion of the relevant step under CPR 7.5(1). That rule provides that where the claim form is served within the jurisdiction, the claimant must complete the step required in the table contained within

Law360: An appellate court has dismissed a restaurant owner's attempt to broaden the scope of a business interruption policy lacking any 'nondamage' extensions to include losses sustained during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. In a unanimous decision, a Court of Appeal panel said that Italian restaurant Bellini's policy covered losses caused only by physical damage to the premises.