The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published Judge Geraint Walters’ update to his reflections on how Swansea Crown Court adapted to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. In his update, Walters J shares his experience of presiding over jury trials at the new Nightingale court in Swansea. His reflections include how the court was transformed to allow enough space to socially distance a second jury panel, the setting aside of rooms for various tasks, including a Witness waiting room and a judge’s retiring room, and the taking on and training of new staff, including ‘new security staff and several new ushers’.

A hybrid meeting is a shareholder meeting format offering simultaneous physical and remote electronic participation. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the holding of hybrid general meetings and annual general meetings (AGMs). This trend was initially driven by advances in remote communication technology and was then significantly furthered by necessity during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic due to restrictions on gatherings. Many companies now offer their members the ability to attend meetings via some form of remote communication technology. There is also interest in holding entirely virtual meetings (where shareholders can only attend and vote using an online platform) However, now that we are a few years on from the COVID-19 pandemic, popular opinion has generally steered away from companies holding virtual meetings due to some institutional investor concern about a meeting structure which does not offer a physical option (other than in times of emergency and/or when governmental guidelines require such a format). Reasons for this include the perceived importance of members being able to question management

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This tracker is intended to be used to track key developments, legislation, guidance and other sources of interest relating to coronavirus (COVID-19) and judicial review. It is designed to provide an easy reference point for relevant content for lawyers during the COVID-19 outbreak. Practice Directions col style="width: 33%;"> Development Date Find out more Practice Direction 51ZA—Extension of time limits and clarification of Practice Direction 51Y 2 April 2020 New Practice Direction 51ZA—Extension of time limits and clarification of Practice Direction 51Y On 1 April 2020, the Ministry of Justice signed the 118th update—practice directions amendments, which introduces a further coronavirus pandemic related practice direction.Practice Direction 51ZA, concerns extensions of time limits and came into force on 2 April 2020. It also provides clarification of Practice Direction 51Y, which came into force on 25 March 2020.See News Analysis: Coronavirus (COVID–19)—new Practice Direction 51ZA (118th update)—2 April 2020. Practice Direction 51Y—Video or audio hearings during coronavirus pandemic 25 March 2020 New Practice Direction 51Y—Video or audio

This Practice Note provides guidance on remote and hybrid hearings, via video-conference and telephone, in the Family Court. It considers what a remote or hybrid hearing is, when a hearing may be conducted remotely and the electronic platforms that are available for remote hearings. The remote participation guidance for the Civil and Family courts and tribunal jurisdictions is also set out, published in June 2026, following the cross-jurisdictional Remote Participation Review. Relevant provisions of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 are also set out, together with judicial guidance and consultations on remote and hybrid hearings. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic accelerated the planned move to greater use of technology, remote hearings and online document management in the Family Court. Audio and video technology has long played a part in the Family Court but reliance on this increased as a response to the pandemic. While some individual cases may lend themselves to remote hearings, in others remote hearings may not be appropriate. Guidance as to remote hearings in the Family Court developed

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) an announcement that the State Opening of Parliament and the King’s Speech will both take place on 17 July 2024, (2) an EAT judgment concerning contractual entitlement to lifelong travel benefits, (3) a Court of Appeal decision about whether contract workers could bring an indirect discrimination claim against the client relating to being paid less than directly employed staff, (4) the Finance (No 2) Act 2024, (5) an EAT decision about whether an employer’s pandemic holiday policy was indirectly discriminatory to non-British employees, (6) a report by PwC on mandatory gender pay gap reporting in 2023–2024, (7) the Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024, (8) a High Court decision refusing an injunction to a trade union member who wanted legal representation at a disciplinary appeal hearing, (9) analysis of the failure to prevent fraud offence faces expected to come into effect in 2025, (10) an EAT judgment on whether redeployment should be considered by the tribunal as a matter of course when considering claims of unfair dismissal or failure to make reasonable adjustments, (11) updated guidance from NHS Employers on the use of settlement agreements and confidentiality clauses when resolving a workplace dispute or ending an employment contract, (12) a reminder that MyHMCTS went live for the North West England region on 3 June 2024, (13) an EAT judgment concerning case management orders in Tesco’s equal pay litigation, (14) an EAT decision on the documents required to properly institute an appeal, (15) an immigration election policy tracker published by the Migration Observatory, (16) dates for your diary, and (17) updates to our legislation and consultation trackers and horizon scanner.

The Cabinet Office has published the UK government's response to the Covid-19 Inquiry Module 2 report, which examined core political and administrative governance during the pandemic. The government accepts all 19 formal recommendations from Baroness Hallett's report, published on 20 November 2025 and commits to specific actions to implement these measures. Among the key actions, the government will enhance representation by inviting devolved government representatives to Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) meetings from the outset of emergencies. Additionally, it will initiate the socio-economic duty under section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) in England and review the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA 2004) by March 2027.

The Insolvency Service has published its Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVA) outcomes and providers for 2023. The Insolvency Service found that, in England and Wales, one in 18 IVAs (5.6%) registered with the Insolvency Service in 2022 terminated within one year of being approved. This was higher than the record-low one-year termination rate in 2020, which coincided with temporary support measures in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The data further shows that the two-year termination rate for IVAs registered in 2021 was 14.4%, which was higher than for IVAs registered in the two preceding years.

The Home Office has announced a new criminal offence for those who organise or facilitate illegal gatherings and breach social distancing restrictions ahead of the bank holiday on 31 August 2020 amid the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Those who facilitate or organise illegal raves, unlicensed music events, or other illegal gatherings of over 30 people may face a fine of £10,000. The new criminal offence comes into force on 28 August 2020. Fines of £100 will continue to be issued to those who attend illegal gatherings and those who have already received a fine will see the amount doubled on each offence, up to a maximum of £3,200.

The House of Commons Justice Committee has published a report, examining the state of the County Court in England and Wales. The Committee found the County Court to be in a state of dysfunction, describing it as the neglected ‘Cinderella service’ of the justice system. The report identifies that average waiting times for small claims cases now exceed 50 weeks, a trend that predates the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and has been exacerbated by increased demand, staffing challenges, and a rise in litigants-in-person. These delays stem from long-standing issues that the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) have failed to resolve.

Property Disputes analysis: This is the first judgment to be handed down relating to a claim for arrears of rent and service charge of retail premises where the tenant relied upon the closure of retail units imposed upon them during lockdowns as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The claim was for arrears of rent and service charge and was defended on various grounds relating to the government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic as well as contentions relating to the landlord’s obligation to insure against loss of rent. Each of the defences was rejected by the court which awarded summary judgment for the landlord for the arrears of rent and service charge. Given that many commercial tenants have withheld rent on the strength of the imposed closures during periods of lockdown, the case provides guidance on some of the issues raised by tenants and will come as a welcome development for landlords. Written by Gary Cowen QC, Queen’s counsel at Falcon Chambers who appeared in the case for the landlord.

The Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG) Committee has published a report examining housing conditions in the social rented sector. The report reveals that progress in improving the quality of social housing has largely stalled since the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, leaving many tenants living in substandard homes. The Committee recommends establishing a new Decent Homes Programme that incorporates pooled funding and a unified housing quality framework for social landlords. Additionally, the report calls for the urgent publication of timelines to extend Awaab's Law to all hazards and advocates for regular ten-year reviews of housing standards.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court, in United Technology Holdings Ltd v Chaffe and others and Jackson v Hayes and Jarvis (Travel) Ltd, confirmed that witnesses must attend trial in person in the absence of good reasons to the contrary. The courts ruled against remote attendance for witnesses and parties not living in the jurisdiction or facing difficulties travelling to England during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, as the default position is that hearings should take place in the court ‘unless there are good health‑related reasons’ not to. If there are, these should be detailed in evidence by provision of a witness statement. Written by Westley Walker, senior associate, at Bristows LLP.