header-logo header-logo

10 March 2020
Issue: 7878 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Health & safety
printer mail-detail

Pragmatism rules for COVID-19

16946
The courts and tribunals appear to be taking a more flexible approach to adjournment of cases, as the COVID-19 virus scare gathers pace

Last week, London Central Employment Tribunal agreed to postpone a whistleblowing and unfair dismissal case after a Simons Muirhead & Burton (SM&B) client displayed symptoms.

SM&B employment partner Makbool Javaid said the individual had recently returned from Italy, although she was not in the most infected area, and was suffering from a headache and flu-like symptoms, so was advised not to come into work.

‘There are judicial guidelines for this situation, involving production of medical evidence, but in this case we just had to set out the circumstances, that she was exhibiting certain symptoms, was going to be tested but was unable to provide medical evidence, and the judge was prepared to postpone the case on lesser evidence. I expect the same would apply to any advocate at risk―like employers, judges are able to be more flexible.’

Javaid said he was advising employers to be proactive where there is a higher than normal risk, ‘interpret rules in a more compassionate way than in the past and understand that people have genuine fears.

‘Our clients have followed their own contingency plans, have had internal planning meetings and looked at potential steps to prevent infection. There are bigger issues as to what happens if schools are closed and parents have to take time off as a result. Employers may need to exercise discretion and allow staff to work from home where possible.’

In London, accountants Deloitte evacuated part of its office after an employee tested positive for the virus, while law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan closed its New York office for a week after a partner contracted the virus.

The Bar Council said it was ‘keeping the coronavirus situation under review and monitoring the advice we receive from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Public Health England.

‘We are keeping our training and events portfolio under continuous review and if the advice from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Public Health England suggests individuals should not travel, then we will cancel or postpone any planned Bar Council courses we are not able to facilitate other than in-person.’

The government has proposed establishing virtual courts as part of emergency coronavirus legislation. A Law Society spokesperson said this ‘could be pragmatic for some cases. The challenge will always be to make sure that the quality of justice delivered is not unduly compromised by dealing with matters remotely’.

 

Issue: 7878 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Health & safety
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll