The Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations 2012 (NPRR 2012), SI 2012/2031, reg 4(1)(a)–(b) provides as follows: ‘…4.—Information to be made available in relation to referendums (1) Proper officer of the relevant council must ensure the information statement and the specified documents are— (a) published on the website of the relevant council; and (b) made available during the referendum period for inspection— (i) at the principal offices of the relevant council; and (ii) where the relevant council controls any premises which are open to the public in the referendum area, at such of those premises as the council considers appropriate having regard to the desirability of ensuring a geographical distribution of premises where the statement and documents are made available, provided that in all cases they are available at least at one such premises…’ The Planning practice guidance (PPG), in a new paragraph entitled ‘What changes have been introduced to neighbourhood planning

In order to be granted a save as you earn (SAYE) option, the option holder must enter into an HMRC-certified savings arrangement. At the outset, the employee must select how much they intend to contribute from their monthly salary under the savings arrangement during the applicable savings period. Each monthly contribution cannot be more than the maximum individual limit which applies under the SAYE legislation (which is currently £500 per month) and the scheme cannot require a minimum contribution of more than £10 per month. From the 1 September 2018, the terms of the SAYE prospectus allow an employee to delay the payment of monthly contributions, by up to 12 occasions in total, without causing the savings contract to be cancelled prematurely but if the participant fails to make a contribution on the due date for a thirteenth occasion the employee is

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: This summary judgment application was the latest in what is now a lengthy line of authorities considering the scope of business interruption cover in the context of coronavirus (COVID-19). The application concerned insurance claims by two popular high street restaurant chains: Wahaca (a trading style of Oaxaca Ltd) and Flat Iron (a trading style of Flat Iron Steak Ltd). The claims were against the same insurer, QIC Europe Ld (‘QIC’). Both claimants held insurance policies with QIC which provided for business interruption cover between 16 October 2019 and 15 October 2020. They claimed losses of approximately £6m. The claimants succeeded in arguing that nationwide regulations could give rise to cover under a standard non-damage denial of access (‘NDDA’) clause referring to localised danger or disturbances. The claimants failed, however, in persuading the court that it was fanciful for the Defendant to deny that the claimants had suffered at least some loss. Written by Edward Grigg, barrister at 4 New Square Chambers.

The issue of vaccinating staff, who work with vulnerable people, against coronavirus (COVID-19), is particularly relevant following the approval of vaccinations and the prioritisation of such staff. Although section 45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (PH(CD)A 1984) allows for regulations to make provision, among other things, for the medical examination, detention, isolation or quarantine of persons, and PH(CD)A 1984, s 45C allows for regulations for the purpose of preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection, PH(CD)A 1984, s 45E specifically prevents the inclusion of provisions requiring a person to undergo medical treatment, including vaccination and other prophylactic treatment. It is therefore not permitted for the government to require individuals to be vaccinated. Likewise, there is no provision that allows an employer to compel an employee to be vaccinated,

The courts are likely to be cautious in permitting extensions related to coronavirus (COVID-19) in defamation cases, and it would be very risky to rely on the discretion under section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) to delay issuing a claim now. A general point about LA 1980 is that it is primary legislation, and there does not appear to be any provision in the coronavirus Bill (as it is at the time of writing) to suspend its effect. Should court offices be completely closed, Pritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons Ltd may apply so that actions issued on, or received before, the first day the offices open would be in time. If there is a prospective action where limitation is about to expire, the prudent course may issue the

Resources they have created Copyright recognises the intellectual creation of an author when a work is created. There is no official system of registration of copyright in the UK. The right arises automatically once the copyright work is recorded, subject to other qualifications being fulfilled. Copyright subsists in the following descriptions of work: • original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works • sound recordings, films or broadcasts • typographical arrangements of published editions ‘Original’ in the case of literary, dramatic musical or artistic works means that a literary, dramatic musical or artistic work must have originated from the author and there must have been more than a trivial level of effort expended creating it. References to the ‘originality’ of the

We have assumed that all claims made and payments received under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) were made and received prior to the sale of the business and assets Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, reg 4, the transferee acquires: • all rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with the contracts of employment of transferring employees • liability for all pre-transfer acts and omissions of or in relation to the transferor in respect of transferring employees or their contracts of employment The scope of TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246, reg 4 extends beyond (express or implied) contractual terms and covers all rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with the contracts of the transferring employees. However, it does not extend to the liability of any

Europol has published the European Union Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA 2021) which outlines threats of serious and organised crime facing the EU. The SOCTA 2021 states that the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has threatened to create ideal conditions for organised crime to spread in the EU and that a key characteristic of criminal networks is their agility in adapting to and capitalising on the changes caused by coronavirus. It also reports that migrant smuggling, trafficking and exploitation of human beings, offline and online frauds, and property crime present substantial threats to EU citizens.

Online filing—certain information can be filed with Companies House electronically and this was the case even before the new measures were introduced to address the coronavirus pandemic. Companies House has published guidance, which explains the process and includes a list of documents that can be sent to Companies House using this procedure. Documents sanctioning a Part 26A restructuring plan (or Part 26 scheme) are not included in the list of

The exercise of an option in a lease to end the term (a ‘break option’) is often subject to conditions. Those conditions must be strictly observed, unless the lease provides otherwise. The date on which the conditions must be complied with may vary, but an obligation to give vacant possession of the premises is usually required to be met on the break date. In order to give vacant possession: • the premises should be free of any legal impediment to possession, such as a subtenancy • the tenant must generally have ceased using the premises for its own purposes (save for any de minimis use), and • the landlord must be able to have immediate and exclusive use and occupation of the premises without any substantial impediment (see Cumberland Consolidated Holdings v Ireland and Legal and General Assurance Society v Expeditors International (UK)) For further details and examples of cases in which the condition

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court held that a failure to comply with the requirements of CPR 3.6 carries with it an implied sanction and accordingly a defaulting party will require relief from sanctions in order to proceed with its application. This case is an important reminder of the need for applications under CPR 3.6 to be made within the prescribed time limit and to be supported by evidence. The 14-day time limit provided by CPR 3.6 is deliberately short as parties are entitled to finality in proceedings. Accordingly, a failure to make a valid application within the time limit is likely to constitute a serious and significant breach. The case also considered whether the current global pandemic coronavirus (COVID-19) constitutes a good reason for a breach of a court order, practice direction or rule. The court held that the pandemic and the fact that one of the parties had been self-isolating was not in itself a good reason for the delay. Written by Nicole Bollard, barrister, at 3PB Barristers.

The Vice-President of the Court of Protection, Mr Justice Hayden, has issued guidance for judges and practitioners offering practical solutions to some of the issues being raised in connection with coronavirus, including this question. See Court of Protection: Guidance COVID-19. In this guidance, Hayden