If a child or adult has tested positive for coronavirus (COVID-19), has come into close contact with someone with coronavirus, or travelled back to the UK from a country where self-isolation upon return is required, then the child or adult must self-isolate. Parents or guardians are legally responsible for ensuring that anyone under 18 self-isolates in these circumstances. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/1045, reg 2 states that when someone self-isolates, they must remain in their home, or the home of a friend or family member, or bed and breakfast accommodation, accommodation provided or arranged under sections 4, 95 or 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or some other suitable place. There is no specific provision permitting a child to

For ‘new’ tenancies, the benefit and burden of landlord and tenant covenants contained in ‘collateral agreements’ are automatically transmitted by statute on assignment, unless they are stated to be personal.

Clause 6.5.1 provides for non-negligent insurance to be taken out by the contractor in joint names with the employer in respect of the potential risk of claims from third parties whose property has been lost or damaged by the works where the contractor is not liable, because it is not possible to prove that the contractor was negligent or in breach of contract and as a result the employer is left with a potential risk of claims for damages. Non-negligent insurance pursuant to clause 6.5.1 is designed to cover any expense, liability, loss, claim or proceedings which are incurred by the employer as a result of collapse, subsidence, heave, vibration, weakening or removal of support or lowering of ground water, in each case caused by carrying out the works.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court held that a significant development includes ‘any event, circumstance or step which is of such a size and nature as to go beyond the events, circumstances and steps which were taken into account, expressly or impliedly, in the budget previously approved or agreed. A development is taken into account impliedly if it is something that was, or should reasonably have been, anticipated by the applicant for revision with regard to the previously approved or agreed budget or to any earlier budget’. An avalanche of unexpected documents plainly represented a significant development. The court accepted that this in turn generated the need for a higher budget for witness statements. Written by Professor Dominic Regan, City Law School London, who advised Sir Rupert Jackson upon costs management.

Where a person has suffered damage abroad through a tortious act and wishes to bring proceedings to recover compensation for that damage in the courts of England and Wales, the case of Chaplin v Boys confirmed that, in order for such a claim to be brought, the claim had to be actionable under the law of the country in which the damage was sustained (the lex loci delicti) as well as under English law. Where such test was satisfied, liability and the assessment and award of damages was determined under English law, though the remedy to make good the damage was a matter for the law of the foreign country. This rule was subject to certain exceptions, allowing the claim to proceed even if not actionable under the law of the foreign country. Statute then intervened, Parliament enacting the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (PIL(MP)A 1995). PIL(MP)A

Practice Note: UK GDPR—the public sector may be useful to consider. In particular, the Crown Commercial Service has published Procurement Policy Note (PPN) 03/17 which provides bespoke guidance (and specimen clauses) for in-scope public sector

The most recent Uninsured Drivers' Agreement 2015 (the 2015 Agreement) came into force for accidents occurring on or after 1 August 2015. The earlier Uninsured Drivers' Agreement 1999 (the 1999 Agreement) applies to road traffic accidents which occurred between 1 October 1999 and 31 July 2015. Clause 3 of the 1999 Agreement provides that where: '(a) any act or thing is done to or by a solicitor or other person acting on behalf of a claimant, (b) any decision is made by or in respect of a solicitor or other person acting on behalf of a claimant, or (c) any sum is

In order to transfer A's rights and obligations under the existing loan, A, B and the company will need to enter into a novation agreement. For suitable precedents, see Novation agreement—long form and Short form letter of novation. The effect of the novation agreement will be to create a new loan agreement between the company and B in substitution for the previous agreement between the company and A. Under section 197(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), a company may not make a loan to a director unless the transaction is approved by the members of the company. The term ‘director’ for these purposes

This Q&A discusses the duty of rationality that applies where a contract provides that a matter is to be determined by a party, as considered in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd. What Braganza itself was about The claimant’s husband worked on a ship in the course of his employment, pursuant to a contract which had a clause conferring a benefit on the claimant if he died in service. However, that benefit would not be due if, ‘in the opinion of’ the employer or its insurers, the death was suicide. The claimant’s husband disappeared while working onboard, and was presumed drowned. The employer investigated and the manager appointed to decide the employer’s position on the issue decided the death was suicide. The claimant sought to challenge the employer’s entitlement to form that opinion and rely on it for the purposes of the contract. It was common ground that the employer’s opinion had to meet some threshold of reasonableness—at least the low threshold that the opinion not be so unreasonable that

This Q&A considers the meaning of centre of main interests (COMI) proceedings, a new concept created by the Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (Brexit SI 2019/146), SI 2019/146. COMI proceedings ‘COMI proceedings’ are a new concept introduced into the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 by Brexit SI 2019/146 (see IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 1.2(2)). This new term does not appear in: (i) the EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency nor (ii) the Retained Recast Regulation on Insolvency but broadly seems to be a replacement for the term ‘main proceedings’ in the EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency. Brexit SI 2019/146 introduces this new term into IR 2016, SI 2016/1024 with the definition: • ‘COMI proceedings means insolvency proceedings in England and Wales to which the EU Regulation applies where the centre of the debtor’s main interests is in the UK’ ‘COMI’ as defined in IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 1.2 is unaffected by the changes under Brexit SI 2019/146 and is defined as follows: • ‘centre of main interests [ie

Damages may be available from an EU Member State if it is found to have breached an individual's right under an EU law provision which has direct effect, or failed to transpose the relevant provision correctly, which has led to damage to that individual that is ‘sufficiently serious’. This is known as the Francovich rule. In Francovich and subsequent cases, the EU courts have held that the violation of EU law by a Member State may give rise to a claim for damages by an injured party in the following circumstances: • the EU law was intended to confer rights on individuals • the breach is 'sufficiently serious', and • there is a direct causal link between the breach and the loss suffered It is for the defaulting Member State to make reparation for a breach under its own substantive and procedural law. In English law, an action for breach of statutory duty has been held to be an appropriate means of enforcing the

Basic concept Most people are familiar enough with the idea that owning tangible property, such as a car or some land, carries with it some rights, such as not to have it stolen or damaged. So that people are incentivised to create things or new ways of doing something, the law provides rights to creators. These rights are to property, generated by someone's creativity, and they are similar to rights in property such as land—they can be sold, rented out or even mortgaged, and they cannot be trespassed on without the owner's consent. The owner has a right to keep other people away from exploiting this intellectual property (IP), for example stopping them selling the products containing the ideas protected by the IP. There are limits to that right to keep people away, because the intention is that the owner's exclusive rights should not extend so far that competition and free markets are stifled. Creative output could be viewed as a spectrum of activities, with a single line on a piece of paper being an example at