FORTHCOMING CHANGE: proposed temporary relaxation of the statutory residence test: On 9 April 2020, a letter from the Chancellor to the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee was published, which outlined a proposed temporary change to the statutory residence test so that any period(s) between 1 March and 1 June 2020 spent in the UK by individuals working on coronavirus-related activities will not count towards the UK residence tests. The qualifying criteria will therefore be designed so that the relaxation of the rules is tightly targeted and supports only those people whose skill-sets are currently required, minimising the risk of abuse. See: COVID-19: temporary changes to the statutory residence test. Further details on the eligibility and scope of this temporary relaxation will be provided and this change will be included in Finance Bill 2020. The number of days spent in the UK is a fundamental element of the statutory residence

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. It tracked the progress of EU legislative proposals and consultations relevant to the life sciences sector between 2019–2022 which were independent of events specifically related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and Brexit during that period which have their own dedicated, archived trackers. This tracker is divided into the below sections: • Legislation • Consultations To track the progress of current EU legislative proposals, consultations and developments, as well as significant cases, which are relevant to the life sciences sector, see Practice Notes: Life sciences tracker—EU, Life sciences cases tracker—EU and Patents tracker—EU. To track the progress of current UK legislative proposals, consultations and developments, as well as significant cases, which are relevant to the life sciences sector, see Practice Notes: Life sciences tracker—UK and Life sciences cases tracker—UK. For a summary listing all life sciences trackers, see: Trackers (Life Sciences)—overview. For older archived items about developments in the life sciences or those related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic or Brexit,

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. This Precedent contains links to a range of optional clauses, or part-wording for insertion into existing clauses, which can be included in a lease in order to deal with some of the consequences and/or issues arising out of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic or other similar scenarios. The clauses and part-wording are drafted on the assumption

With employees largely working from home in 2020 and 2021 and outside of traditional office working hours, what does this blurring of home and work life mean for the ownership of ‘creative’ works? The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic changed the way that we work in that more of us work outside of the physical office, at unconventional times and with our own computer equipment. In doing so, it has raised the profile of the question of who owns materials created ‘for work’ or ‘on the job’. The pandemic has not changed what you need to consider in determining who owns a copyright work in these circumstances. The starting point for the ownership of copyright materials is section 11 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988),

This Lexis+® UK Local Government future Education tracker 2021 [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 during the year 2021. 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: Education tracker 2020 [Archived], 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 Coronavirus (COVID-19) To keep up-to-date with guidance and content relating to the impact of COVID 19 on the education sector, see the Coronavirus (COVID-19)—local government tracker—post July 2021

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: the High Court considered one of many topical insurance issues left unresolved by the recent Supreme Court ‘test case’ on business interruption insurance (The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & Others [2021] UKSC 1), namely whether there was cover for losses arising from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic under a policy with a ‘closed list’ disease clause. The policy in question provided cover against the outbreak of a range of infectious diseases, including ‘Plague’ but not COVID-19. The policyholder argued that the word ‘Plague’ should be read as a general term for an infectious disease with a high mortality rate, epidemic or pandemic, such that loss caused by COVID-19 would be covered. The court rejected this interpretation and held that the word ‘Plague’ was intended to refer to the specific disease caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis. The clause therefore did not cover loss caused by COVID-19 and the policyholder’s claim was struck out. Written by Martyn Naylor, barrister at 4 Pump Court Chambers. Martyn was instructed as junior counsel in the Supreme Court ‘test case’ and recently obtained summary judgment for an insurer in a ‘closed list’ disease clause case similar to the present.

Background to the Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction Supporting the Insolvency Practice Direction The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented social distancing measures and lockdowns. This in turn has had a significant impact on the ability of the courts, and court users, to carry out their normal functions. In response, the courts are operating under new protocols and procedures—see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—Changes to the court process in insolvency proceedings [Archived]. To supplement these changes, and in order to deal with specific challenges relevant to insolvency proceedings, a Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction (TIPD) was introduced on 6 April 2020. This expired and was replaced by further versions of TIPD (in the same form), with the most recent version being introduced on 30 June 2021. That version expired on 30 September 2021 and has been replaced by a new temporary insolvency practice direction supporting the insolvency practice direction (MIPD 2021). For further details on the original TIPD, see Practice Note: The Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction (6 April

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note is a summary of the key legal developments of relevance to personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners as of 2 August 2021. For the most recent horizon scanner, reference should be made to PI and Clinical Negligence horizon scanning—overview. Coronavirus (COVID-19) To stay ahead of the fast-moving changes in the courts’ processes and procedures necessitated by the pandemic and for industry guidance on how to manage cases during the pandemic including medical examinations, service and limitation, see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19) implications for PI and clinical negligence [Archived]. For details on recent developments in this area for PI and clinical negligence claims, see: • NHS Coronavirus (COVID-19) Clinical Negligence Protocol 2020 updated—LNB News 29/07/2021 73 • Coronavirus (COVID-19)—ABI further extends Statement of Intent to 13 August 2021—LNB News 13/07/2021 30 • Coronavirus (COVID-19)—courts and tribunals guidance updated—LNB News 26/07/2021 25 • MOJ publishes the impact on the Court Funds Office as a result of Coronavirus (COVID-19)—LNB

This week's edition of Insurance & Reinsurance weekly highlights includes: Allianz beats theatre business attempt to revive coronavirus (COVID-19) claim; Russian airline kept jets to avoid unrest, lessor executive says; Home Office launches new crackdown on insurance fraud; EIOPA consults on draft technical advice on standard formula capital requirements for crypto assets; cases and decisions; key dates for your diary; and other news highlights reported over the past week.

This Q&A deals with the issue of e-signatures. The question is whether two specific types of document, namely, a statement of truth and an IHT400 form, can be signed electronically. This may be particularly relevant in the context of coronavirus (COVID-19), which may mean that personal representatives (PRs) are house-bound, and also in circumstances where the postal system is restricted. E-signatures The current regime regarding electronic signatures derives from Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market (the eIDAS Regulation). This defines an ‘electronic signature’ as any data in electronic form which is attached to or logically associated with other data in electronic form and which is used by the signatory to sign. E-signatures have been legally binding in the UK since 2000 under the Electronic Communications Act 2000 (ECA 2000) and the Electronic Signatures Regulation 2002, SI 2002/318. These

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note is a summary of the key legal developments of relevance to personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners as of 9 February 2021. For the most recent horizon scanner, reference should be made to PI and Clinical Negligence horizon scanning—overview. Coronavirus (COVID-19) To stay ahead of the fast-moving changes in the courts’ processes and procedures necessitated by the pandemic and for industry guidance on how to manage cases during the pandemic including medical examinations, service and limitation, see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19) implications for PI and clinical negligence [Archived]. For details on recent developments in this area for PI and clinical negligence claims, see: • Elizabeth Boulden and Cressida Mawdesley-Thomas, barristers at 12 KBW, discuss the Vaccine Damages Payments Act 1979, its impact on the coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine and whether it is fit for purpose. See News Analysis: The Vaccine Damages Payments Act 1979 and the coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine • Approximately £240m in personal injury claims

This week's edition of Insurance & Reinsurance weekly highlights includes: ExCeL wins landmark £16m coronavirus (COVID-19) business interruption insurance test case; Aon, Marsh want Ukraine reinsurance exclusions lifted; London reinsurance sector grew to £11bn in 2023; update to the Insurance and Reinsurance Undertakings (Prudential Requirements) (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2024; European Commission publishes competitiveness strategy for Europe; cases and decisions; key dates for your diary; and other news highlights reported over the past week.