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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll