This Archived Practice Note records the legal restrictions introduced to combat the Omicron variant of the coronavirus (COVID 19) between 8 December 2021 and 26 January 2022. It is archived and is no longer maintained. It covers the mandatory wearing of face coverings in public places and in public transport together with the restrictions on gatherings while the country followed ‘Plan B’ as referred to below. The country returned to ‘Plan A’ on 27 January 2021 and further repeal of restrictions are likely before the Coronavirus Act 2020 expires in March 2020. Following the identification of the Omicron variant in the UK, the government raised the coronavirus alert level and announced that England will move to ‘Plan B’ measures to combat the spread of the Omicron variant. An instruction was given that from 13 December 2021, all individuals are encouraged to work from home where possible. Further restrictions surrounding large gatherings were also brought in. See: LNB News 09/12/2021 86. The measures introduced helped to control the spread

Written in partnership with Melissa Ratchev (Associate, Hogan Lovells International LLP) and Maegen Morrison (Partner, Hogan Lovells International LLP) (Associate, Hogan Lovells International LLP). Main market The UK regulatory framework relating to corporate governance for companies whose securities are admitted to the Main Market is primarily set out in the UK Corporate governance Code (Code) and the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules (DTRs), although note that there are also provisions relating to conduct and transparency in the Listing Rules (LRs). Code The Code sets out recommendations on effective board practice and governance which are divided into main principles, supporting principles and detailed provisions relating to leadership, effectiveness, accountability, remuneration and relations with shareholders (Sections A to E of the Code). The Code applies to all companies with a premium listing, regardless of whether or not they are incorporated in the UK. Standard listed companies are not required to comply with the Code but it is generally considered

As noted in the section on ‘Trading stock’ in Practice Note: Taxation of trading profits—basis, receipts and deductions, normally, a disposal of trading stock in the ordinary course of the trade should give rise to a receipt of that trade and the cost of acquiring such stock should give rise to a trading deduction (section 48 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (CTA 2009) and HMRC’s Business Income Manual (BIM) at BIM33610). In certain circumstances, the transfer or appropriation of trading stock is treated as if it were transferred or appropriated at market value. Examples include when: • an asset held as trading stock is appropriated by the company

We refer you to Practice Note: The Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents and the link to the protocol therein. Specifically, we refer you to paragraph 4.3 of the protocol which states: This Protocol ceases to apply to a claim where, at any stage, the claimant notifies the defendant that the claim has now been revalued at more than the Protocol upper limit. In addition, see paragraph 7.76 which states: Where the claimant gives notice to the defendant that the claim is unsuitable for this Protocol (for example, because there are complex issues of fact or law in relation to the vehicle related damages) then the claim will no longer continue under this Protocol. However, where the court considers that the claimant acted unreasonably in giving such notice it will award no more than the fixed costs in rule 45.18. Practice Note: Fixed costs in road traffic

The costs of claims which started within the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (RTA Protocol) are fixed. The purpose of the RTA Protocol is to increase the speed of decision making by imposing fixed response times and fixed costs on parties. For further guidance on when the RTA Protocol will apply, see Practice Note: The Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents. For child claims, whether settled at Stage 2 or proceeding to an assessment of damages at Stage 3, the process is essentially the same as for any infant approval hearing. For further information, see Practice Note: Motor claims

Pre-action protocols for low value claims RTA protocol The protocol applies to all road traffic accident (RTA) claims where: • the claim includes damages in respect of personal injury • the claimant values the claim at no more than the ‘Protocol upper limit’ • if proceedings were started the small claims track would not be the normal track, and • the accident occurred in England or Wales The ‘Protocol upper limit’ is— • £25,000 where the accident occurred on or after 31 July 2013, or • £10,000 where the accident occurred on or after 30 April 2010 and before 31 July 2013 on a full liability basis including pecuniary losses but excluding interest. Para 5.9 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (the RTA protocol) provides that: ‘Where the claimant reasonably believes that

The court can award the judgment creditor costs in its application for an attachment of earnings order (AE order), see CPR 89.10. Where costs are allowed, this would include: • charge of a legal representative for attending the hearing (which includes, for these purposes, where a legal representative

Although bankruptcy petitions are designed to be relatively straightforward, they are subject to many technical requirements, and failing to comply with these can lead to delays or dismissal. A creditor would be well-advised to instruct solicitors with insolvency expertise to manage the process. The solicitors’ own professional charges will vary from firm to firm. The current court fee for issuing a bankruptcy petition is £280, plus a petition deposit of £990. If a bankruptcy order is made, the deposit will be refunded to the petitioner provided there are sufficient assets in the bankrupt’s estate to cover it. Service is a hotly disputed area in bankruptcy petitions; debtors will often seek dismissal on the grounds that they

What costs order will be made depends very much on the specific circumstances of the case. However, it is important to note that the general costs rule that the winning party is entitled to recover the costs it incurred in making the application does not apply in relation to applications to set aside default judgments. The rationale for this was summed up by Edwards-Stuart J in Tideway v Westminster City Council in which he stated: 'I should make it plain straightaway that, in my view, this is not the sort of application where the costs simply follow the event. On the contrary, none of us would be here today if the defendant had got its house in order right from the outset. It has only itself to blame for that position.' In some cases

The impact of losing title deeds depends primarily on whether the title in respect of which the bank has been granted the mortgage, comprises registered land or unregistered land. Note that in the vast majority of cases the mortgaged property will be registered. Where the security title comprises registered land It is unlikely that many banks (or other lenders) who have recently lent on the security of registered land would ever receive or retain the title deeds relating to such property. Since 2003, following implementation of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002), all documents at the Land Registry have been ‘dematerialised’ ie scanned and stored electronically, and even prior to 2003 many lenders had begun the ‘dematerialisation’ process where land was registered, requiring only some or even no title deeds to be sent to them. If conveyancing solicitors nevertheless sent the deeds to such lenders on completion of a mortgage, the lenders would often simply return them. That said, there may still

What are expenses? All fees, costs, charges and other expenses incurred in the course of winding up (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, rr 6.42 and 7.108), administration (IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 3.50) or bankruptcy (IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 10.148) proceedings are treated as expenses of the winding up, administration or, as the case may be, of the bankruptcy. Liquidation and bankruptcy The rules relating to liquidation and bankruptcy expenses are set out at IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 6.42 (creditors’ voluntary winding up), IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 7.108 (winding up by the court) and IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 10.149 (bankruptcy). Since they contain a number of provisions drafted in near-identical terms, the following comments apply to all of these rules. Whether expenditure by a liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) should count as an expense of the liquidation or bankruptcy is not a matter which the court has any discretion to determine. It merely depends on

TMT analysis: Guy Wilmot, partner at Russell-Cooke’s corporate and commercial team, considers the latest case law and guidance on the meaning of a ‘service provider’ of ‘information society services’ under (the E-Commerce Directive), and the UK’s implementing Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002.