We have assumed that the landlord is not a social landlord. There are broadly two limitations on residential possession action as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. First, the period of notice required to be given to most residential tenants has been extended. Specifically in relation to 'ground 14' applicable to assured tenancies, section 81 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 29 to the Coronavirus Act 2020 amend section 8(4) of the Housing Act 1988. It now provides that: ‘If a notice under this section specifies in accordance with subsection (3)(a) above Ground 14 in Schedule 2 to this Act [(whether without other grounds or with any ground

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note discusses some of the key considerations and implications for IP practitioners during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It also includes a table containing an archive of news items on coronavirus and coronavirus developments that relate to IP. For a discussion about the impact of the pandemic on IP strategy and practice, see News Analysis: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—the impact on IP strategy and practice. IP deadlines and procedures In light of the coronavirus pandemic and associated guidance on social distancing, offices were closed and some postal services suspended. In response to such measures, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO), World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO), European Patent Office (EPO) and EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) announced changes to various IP deadlines and procedures. These announcements are tracked in the IP coronavirus tracker below and the IPO, WIPO, EPO and EUIPO have created dedicated and maintained coronavirus pages. Due to the fast-paced nature of the coronavirus crisis, it is essential to check these sites

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note focuses on the implications for dispute resolution in the light of temporary rules introduced in the context of coronavirus (COVID-19). This Practice Note aims to assist dispute resolution practitioners seeking to understand changes to civil court processes and procedures during the coronavirus pandemic and the effect those changes and this pandemic may have on their practice and individual matters. It considers the practical implications of coronavirus on a number of key litigation procedures and concepts. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: • Coronavirus (COVID-19) civil court specific guidance—dispute resolution [Archived], which gives further guidance in relation to specific courts • SCCO guidance for detailed assessment from 1 August 2020 This Practice Note offers ‘matter-neutral’ guidance on the procedural implications of the coronavirus on dispute resolution in England and Wales. For guidance on some key substantive and ‘matter-specific’ implications of the coronavirus, see: • contract breach and termination—Coronavirus (COVID-19) and contractual obligations—checklist, Practice

This Q&A considers the practical considerations when serving a claim for in an EU Member State in light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The service provisions were those applicable for service prior to IP completion day (31 December 2020) ie service under Regulation (EC) 1393/2007, the Service Regulation. For guidance on the position post that date, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—serving in an EU Member State. The first point to note is that service in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) 1393/2007, the Service Regulation is mandatory, and it is not possible to circumvent this procedure through an order for alternative service from the courts of this country, or by other means, see Hornan v Baillie. However, compelling the case for alternative service might be in the present circumstances, it is therefore simply not an option. Methods of service under

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note focuses on the implications for dispute resolution in the light of temporary rules introduced in the context of coronavirus (COVID-19). This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19) implications for dispute resolution [Archived]. This Practice Note aims to assist dispute resolution practitioners seeking to understand the fast-moving changes to civil court processes and procedures during this time and the implications those changes and this pandemic may have on their practice and individual matters. It contains civil court specific guidance that has been issued in response to the coronavirus pandemic, all of which can be easily accessed using the ‘jump-links’ in the expandable table of contents in the left-hand margin of this Practice Note. As most courts and tribunal buildings are now open in line with public health advice, practitioners are referred to the Gov.uk ‘Find a court or tribunal’ service for the current status and contact details of courts and tribunals.

In light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the government’s guidance relating to social distancing and staying at home, HMRC has relaxed its rules relating to conditionally exempt property. Heritage property usually open to the public Where the owner of a heritage property was not able to open to the public for a sufficient number of days in 2020, HMRC will not consider that the terms of conditional exemption have been broken, even if it means that some of the period covered by the agreement is missed or the property was not open at all in 2020. HMRC initially indicated that it would expect the property to be open later in 2020 to make up for any lost days, if possible. However, if this was not possible, additional open days in 2021 would not be expected to make up for missed days in 2020. The guidance was updated in December 2020 to confirm that the terms of conditional

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. It considers issues relating to the right to holiday and holiday pay during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It: • summarises the position under WTR 1998 in relation to the right to annual leave (or holiday) and pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833, as a reminder of the general context in which these issues need to be considered • describes the relevant guidance issued by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), HMRC and Acas, and • considers, specifically in the context of holiday and holiday pay during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: ◦ how holiday pay is calculated ◦ whether an employer can tell an employee when to take their holiday, including managing holiday requests and requests to cancel booked holiday, and whether an employer can cancel a worker’s booked holiday or require a worker to take holiday at specific times ◦ amendments to the WTR 1998, SI 1998/1833 relating to carrying forward holiday

While we are not aware of case law authority specifically dealing with this issue, the terms of collateral arrangements, even those which are personal to the parties, can be read by the court in conjunction with the terms of a lease (Allied Dunbar Assurance v Homebase). Accordingly, on the basis of this principle, a court could be made aware of the terms of a side letter under the current lease in deciding the terms of the renewal lease. This would obviously

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. It tracked the progress of UK 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. 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. 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 and Life sciences cases tracker—EU. For older archived items about developments in the life sciences or those related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic or Brexit, see Practice Notes: • Coronavirus (COVID-19)—UK life sciences tracker [Archived] • Coronavirus (COVID-19)—EU life sciences tracker [Archived] • Life sciences—Brexit tracker 2020–2022 [Archived] • Life sciences—Brexit tracker 2017–2020 [Archived] • Patents

The response of the courts to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has been patchy and confused. The position changes from day-to-day as to whether hearings should go ahead, whether they should be in person, and whether non-urgent cases should simply be adjourned or conducted remotely. At the time of writing the guidance suggests that where cases can be heard remotely, they will be—see: Coronavirus (COVID-19)-Civil and Family Courts guidance from Lord Chief Justice—LNB News 19/03/2020 93, and Coronavirus (COVID-19)—Guidance on telephone and video hearings updated—LNB News 19/03/2020 18, but the ability of the various court buildings to provide for this is highly questionable. In ongoing litigation there will be circumstances where a hearing is required within a particular time—for example an application to adduce expert evidence will be required

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.

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,