Where a tenant occupies premises for the purpose of carrying out a business, it is likely that, unless the provisions of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) have been expressly excluded in the manner required by LTA 1954, the tenant will have security of tenure. LTA 1954, s 24 provides that a tenancy that falls within LTA 1954, Pt II will not terminate by effluxion of time but will continue on a statutory basis until terminated by the landlord or tenant in accordance with the provisions of LTA 1954, Pt II. A landlord may, pursuant to LTA 1954, s 25, gives to the tenant a notice terminating the tenancy. However, the landlord must state whether or

Prioritisation of applications The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has confirmed that it will prioritise applications for Operating Safety Cases in respect of operations related to coronavirus. Under normal circumstances only applications from the police, fire or ambulance services are prioritised, with all other applications being reviewed on a first come, first served basis. Applications for the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for work related to coronavirus will also be prioritised, with those that have the most potential to mitigate harm from the outbreak being given the highest priority. However, there are limitations, as only applications from operators who have had their services specifically requested by one of the following organisations in relation to coronavirus will be assessed: • UK National Health Service Hospital or NHS Trust • UK Police Service • UK Fire Service • UK Ambulance Services, or • applications that have been specifically recommended/requested by a government department The CAA has also stipulated that it cannot guarantee the prioritisation of any application and that the processing times for applications relating to

Forthcoming expiry of limitation It is important to ensure that you comply with the time frames provided for under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) (or other applicable limitation provisions), since a failure to do so can enable a defendant to have a complete defence. As a general point, LA 1980 is primary legislation, and the government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has not included any changes to, or suspension of, the effect of that legislation. For general guidance on limitation periods under LA 1980, see Practice Note: Limitation—the principal limitation periods. In order to bring a claim within the limitation period, the court needs to receive the claim form and correct court fee in time.

Commercial tenancy The tenant will need to have regard to: • any legislation requiring closure of premises or restricting movement that is in force and the potential for this to become more restrictive • any practical issues, for example the availability of any necessary contractors and the need to plan for the possibility that the relevant people may be unable to attend due to developing coronavirus (COVID-19) symptoms or being otherwise required to self-isolate • its responsibilities to its employees and any

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has published an update on the legal case involving Aftab Baig, who defrauded Leeds City Council of over £710,000 intended to support small businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic. Baig was sentenced to four years in prison after being found guilty on 12 February 2025 at Leeds Crown Court of three counts of fraud under s 1 of the Fraud Act 2006. The fraud was committed by making fraudulent grant claims against thirty-two Greggs properties and diverting the funds into a business account. The investigation was conducted by the National Investigation Service (NATIS), and the CPS plans to recover any assets obtained through this criminal activity.

Background The coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis has had a significant impact on businesses around the world, putting many at real risk of insolvency. Some jurisdictions have made temporary changes to their insolvency laws to assist companies (and their directors) and individuals given the current uncertainty over how long the crisis will continue and what its lasting effects will be. This Practice Note considers the position in the UK. For details on the reforms in other jurisdictions, see: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Tracker of insolvency reforms globally [Archived]. Previous proposals for reform On 26 August 2018, the government issued a response to its consultations on Insolvency and Corporate Governance, announcing several proposed changes to UK insolvency legislation. The proposals include the introduction of: • a moratorium available to all companies to allow companies to formulate restructuring proposals without creditor pressure • a new ‘restructuring plan’, being a new formal process to enable companies to cram down dissenting creditors • a prohibition on enforcement of contractual provisions permitting termination for an insolvency event in contracts and licences for the supply

The answer to this Q&A is likely to depend on: • whether there are normal working hours or no normal working hours for the employee in question, and • if there are no normal working hours, the employee’s average weekly remuneration for the relevant twelve-week period For information on flexible furlough under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) generally, see Practice Note: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (extended version 1 July to 31 October 2020) [Archived]. For information on the use of the CJRS grant during the notice period, see Practice

The term ‘force majeure’ has no independent meaning at English law. It is a creature of contract and unless the relevant customer contract includes a specific force majeure clause within it, then it will be of no effect. In general terms, a force majeure clause in a contract excuses a party from performance of that contract following: • the occurrence of an event beyond the reasonable control of the party • which has hindered performance or made it impossible Assuming that there is a specific force majeure clause in the relevant customer contract, then whether or not you can be excused from the performance of it will depend upon the particular construction of that clause and the surrounding facts. If the clause makes specific provision for an official

The Insolvency Service has announced that Cardiff businesswoman Rupali Wagh was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment on 17 July 2026 after pleading guilty to five counts of fraud relating to fraudulent Bounce Back Loan applications made during the coronavirus pandemic. Following an Insolvency Service investigation, it was established that between May and September 2020 Wagh fraudulently obtained £216,250 in Bounce Back Loans across four companies by inflating business turnover figures, submitting duplicate loan applications for companies that were only entitled to one loan, and making false declarations. According to the Insolvency Service, Wagh transferred much of the loan proceeds into her personal bank account, using the funds to repay personal debts, purchase stocks and shares, and make overseas transfers rather than for legitimate business purposes. During the investigation, Wagh initially attempted to attribute one of the applications to a third party before admitting that she had acted alone. The Insolvency Service is seeking to recover the fraudulently obtained funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

It is not uncommon that a party will enter into an Agreement for Lease (AFL) in respect of a building under construction or to be constructed. This provides the security of a tenant once the building has been completed, but also allows the tenant to require certain conditions, for example to prevent any variations to the building works that materially alters the size of certain rooms. An AFL will ordinarily oblige

Where multiple dwellings relief (MDR) applies to a transaction a buyer can choose whether to claim MDR or pay stamp duty land tax (SDLT) calculated on a standard basis (for which, see Practice Note: Rates of SDLT). Depending on the particular circumstances of the transaction, a claim for MDR may or may not result in less SDLT being due. For more details

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information only. UPDATE (23/3/21): The Department of Health and Social Care announced on 22 March 2021 (among other things) 12 sections that will be removed from the Coronavirus Act 2020(CA 2020), following the one-year review of that legislation. Those provisions include sections 8 and 9 of the CA 2020 relating to emergency volunteering leave, which have not yet been brought into force. See: LNB News 23/03/2021 40. This Practice Note explains the proposals set out in the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Act) for emergency volunteering leave (EVL), a temporary new form of statutory unpaid leave for employees and workers who wish to volunteer in the health and social care sectors during the outbreak of coronavirus (COVID-19). The relevant provisions of the Act are not yet in force, as the required commencement regulations have not been made. A report by the Department of Health and Social Care dated 29 May 2020 on the status of the Act stated that there