LR prescribed lease clauses Coronavirus (COVID-19): the coronavirus pandemic has caused the UK to expedite new insolvency provisions, both of a temporary and permanent nature. For news and guidance as to the implications from a property perspective see: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—implications for property — Property Insolvency. LR3. Parties to this Lease Landlord   [insert landlord’s name, address and registered number] [(in [administrative receivership] [and also in] [liquidation OR administration])] 1 [insert name of landlord] [(in [administrative receivership] [and also in] [liquidation OR administration])] of [insert address] [incorporated in England and Wales with company registration number [insert company registration number]] (Landlord) acting by [any one of] [ insert one of the following: ] [ Lease by receivers: the [joint] [receiver[s] of the Property], [insert name of [first] receiver]

It appears from the government guidance published on 26 March 2020 (the Guidance) that the administrator of a company which has been placed into administration will be able to access the coronavirus (COVID-19) (CJRS). The guidance explicitly states: ‘Where a company is being taken under the management of an administrator, the administrator will be able to access the CJRS. See Claim for your employee’s wages through

Common law rules of service apply to notices served under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) (to seek possession of an assured shorthold tenancy). These may be displaced by any agreed service provisions in the tenancy agreement, which should be checked carefully. Subject to that, the notice may be served: • by personal delivery to the tenant • by post, or • by delivery to an authorised agent See Commentary: Service of notices to quit and other notices:

Law360, London: Hospitality businesses forced to close during the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis said their insurers owe them £80m, arguing at the first day of trial on 20 May 2025 that they should be compensated for every time they were materially affected by pandemic measures.

Law360, London: QIC Europe Ltd has argued that it is not obliged to cover alleged losses sustained by the owner of a restaurant chain after it temporarily closed sites at the height of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic because there were no cases of the virus 'within the immediate vicinity' of the premises.

Law360, London: A judge ruled on 9 May 2025 that AIG does not have to pay the two owners of bars and hotels in Cornwall for losses suffered during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic because the policy did not specifically cover the COVID-19 disease.

Law360, London: A Lloyd's of London syndicate has agreed to a settlement with another syndicate in a US$90m dispute between insurers and underwriters over losses it allegedly suffered when the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic led to trade and entertainment venues being shuttered across the world.

This Q&A raises the steps which must be taken to bring an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) to an end—a tenancy of premises occupied by the tenant as an only or principal home which has the protection of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988). To bring an AST to an end using the section 21 procedure, the landlord has to serve a

This Lexis+® UK Local Government future Education tracker 2020 [Archived] contains a historical record of current awareness, consultations legislations and developments tracked by the Education tracker covering the entire spectrum of education from early years foundation stage (EFYS) to further and higher education. It does not cover the impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) which are covered in the Coronavirus (COVID-19)—education tracker [Archived] and the Coronavirus (COVID-19)—education tracker 2020 [Archived] respectively. As soon as news, consultations and other developments cease to be current, they are archived in the Education tracker archive. Secondary legislation is archived two months after it is in force. Cases and primary legislation are archived 12 months after coming into force or after judgment is handed down. See Practice Notes: Education tracker 2019 [Archived], Education tracker 2018 [Archived], Education tracker 2017 [Archived] and Education tracker 2016 [Archived]. For ease of reference, the tracker has been divided into the following sections: • Legislation and statutory guidance • Bills: passage through parliament • Consultations and developments of interest • Cases Legislation and statutory guidance Further and Higher

Law360, London: A group of insurers will challenge test-case litigation over business interruption insurance in connection with the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic at the Court of Appeal in London on 21 January 2025, a hearing that lawyers say could have a long-term impact on disputes over cover.

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: The Court of Appeal decided that ‘at the premises’ (or ‘ATP’) disease clauses in business interruption (BI) insurance policies cover losses suffered by businesses because of coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdowns. These clauses provide cover for BI losses caused by occurrences of notifiable diseases ‘at the premises’ of the insured when where the loss is also concurrently caused by occurrences of notifiable disease outside the premises. The proceedings were brought by various businesses against their insurers on BI policies that contained ATP clauses. The central question was whether each instance of coronavirus in the UK was a concurrent proximate cause of the government lockdowns for the purposes of ATP cover. The policyholders argued that it was, by analogy with the Supreme Court’s decision in FCA v Arch Insurance Ltd [2021] UKSC 1, which concerned disease cover for BI losses caused by coronavirus cases occurring within a certain radius of the insured premises. The judgment of the Court of Appeal confirms that the Arch causation analysis does apply to ATP disease clauses, raising the prospect that it may apply to yet further categories of BI policy wording. Written by Lucas Jones and Maud Mullan, barristers at 3 Verulam Buildings.

On 23 April 2020, the UK government announced it would legislate to temporarily ban statutory demands and winding-up petitions. This was supplemented by a press release last updated on 25 April 2020. While this announcement does not yet have legislative effect, the government has confirmed that the ban on statutory demands will be back-dated from 1 March 2020 and last until 30 June 2020. The ban on winding-up petitions will apply to those presented between 27 April 2020 and 30 June 2020. The ban applies to those based on the debtor’s inability to pay its debts due to coronavirus (COVID-19). The measures are due to be included in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, expected imminently. The restrictions expressly state they apply to statutory demands to and winding-up petitions against: • companies; that are • tenants of commercial premises; who • cannot pay their rent due to the coronavirus However, there are