The doctrine of frustration is applied by the courts rarely and narrowly. The High Court took the view in March 2019 that, in similar circumstances presented by Brexit, the doctrine could not be applied.  The leading case was determined in March 2019, Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency. The facts of that case were that in 2011, the parties had signed an agreement for lease for the then unbuilt premises. They signed a 25-year lease in 2014. In 2017, the UK notified the EU of its intention to withdraw from the EU. The European Medicines Agency was the tenant.  Capacity to hold the tenancy One of the difficulties in Canary Wharf was that if the tenant were to remain in London then it would lose its protections and immunities granted under EU Law. However, it remained capable of holding

In what circumstances can an application be made? A charge created by a company must be registered at Companies House. Significant consequences flow from a failure so to register. The requisite forms to effect the registration must be delivered to Companies House by the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day after the creation of the charge. If the documents are delivered after that date, the Registrar will only register the charge if the documents are accompanied by a court order made following an application under section 859F of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). CA 2006, s 859F is a provision which allows the 21-day period to be extended by application to court. Although the wording of CA 2006, s 859F(3) appears prospective in its nature, in practice, particularly given the test to be applied in CA 2006, s 859F(2),

The European Commission has published a ‘stakeholder dialogue outcome’ on best practices in relation to relief measures offered to consumers and businesses in the context of the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. It reflects the outcome of the high-level dialogue between participants of two roundtables on best practices organised in May and June 2020 by the European Commission in light of the crisis.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove, has responded to a joint letter from First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, and First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, which they sent to Prime Minister Boris Johnson on 25 May 2021. In the letter, Gove highlighted the importance of cooperation in the response to the latest phase of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, comprising the vaccine production and rollout throughout the UK. Gove notified Sturgeon and Drakeford that the Prime Minister has agreed to delay the COVID Recovery meeting to allow for additional preparations to take place, but ‘remains keen to meet as soon as possible’.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has successfully prosecuted Aftab Baig for defrauding Leeds City Council of over £710,000 in coronavirus (Covid-19) small business grants. Baig was found guilty at Leeds Crown Court of three counts of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006. The fraud involved making false claims against 32 Greggs properties, with the funds being diverted to Baig's personal business account. While most of the money has been recovered, over £90,000 remains outstanding. The CPS has announced intentions to initiate proceedings to recover any assets resulting from this criminal activity.

The European Commission has announced that the European Commission's Health Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) has signed a joint procurement Framework Contract with HIPRA Human Health for the supply of their protein coronavirus (COVID–19) vaccine. According to the Commission, '14 Member States and countries are participating in this joint procurement, under which they can purchase up to 250 million doses'.

On the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website, Judge Geraint Walters has shared his reflections on how Swansea Crown Court has adapted during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Walters J recounts the early days of the pandemic and the ‘remarkable response’ from Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for ensuring that court hearings could be conducted remotely. He also discusses catching up on jury trials and mentions that the new Civic Centre Court will begin hearing jury trials on 17 August 2020.

We have assumed that the question refers to a hypothetical winding-up petition presented as at the time of writing, and not at any earlier date. We therefore do not address the position in relation to a winding-up petition heard as at the time of writing, but having been presented prior to 1 October 2021. As is well-known, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic prompted the passing of legislation which placed (and continues to place) restrictions on the presentation of winding-up petitions. Those restrictions are found in Schedule 10 to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020). So far as

Clare Ambrose, Twenty Essex We all know the crisis is fast-moving. Arrangements that seemed sensible a week ago now look unrealistic or inappropriate. As matters stand there is some certainty that any hearing listed before the end of April 2020 will be significantly disrupted by global travel restrictions and guidance on social distancing. Everyone concerned wants to reduce disruption but work safely. Tribunals will expect parties to co-operate, adapt and compromise in order to find solutions that work. My current experience is that most parties are doing this. Obstructive and tactical positions are likely to be fairly obvious and viewed unfavourably. The client will need to be briefed but constructive discussions need to be broached promptly with the other side with a view to

At the time of publishing, the Master of the Rolls has issued three updates (numbers 116–118) which modify provisions of the CPR to reflect the impact of COVID-19, introducing three new practice directions, CPR PD 51Y, CPR PD 51Z and CPR PD 51ZA. None of these practice directions have modified any existing requirements in the CPR for personal service so it is safest to assume that all requirements

For information: • on the revised Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS), see Practice Note: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (extended version 1 July to 31 October 2020) [Archived] • on holiday and holiday pay during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—holiday and holiday pay [Archived] • on holiday and holiday issues generally, see Practice Notes: Holiday and Holiday pay It is clear that: • employees can take holiday while on furlough • the legal framework for calculating holiday pay applies to furloughed workers exactly as it applies to those not on furlough See the section of Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—holiday and holiday pay [Archived] entitled: Furloughed workers, under the heading ‘Holiday pay’. The BEIS guidance Holiday entitlement and pay during coronavirus (COVID-19) has not been updated since it was first published in May 2020, and does not deal specifically with flexible furlough under the revised

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.