Do you think MHFA will become a legal requirement for businesses eventually?

The coronavirus outbreak has seen State support being given to businesses on an unprecedented scale.

This issue is likely to be increasingly relevant as Governments seek to protect and stimulate their economies as they emerge from lockdown.

How have the rules been relaxed in the context of the crisis and what facets of the existing law can be used for the State to provide support to undertakings?

The Act was obviously subject to much debate and criticism as the Bill passed through Parliament. It is difficult to properly assess any gaps until after the necessary secondary legislation has been published and comes into force (along with the remainder of the Act), but some of the likely issues include:

• The impact on the insurance market, and the (lack of) availability and increased cost of insurance in light of the provisions of the Act
• How the introduction of retrospective claims will affect the market, both in relation to how parties might go about trying to prove matters which are 30 years old, but also the lack of certainty for those potentially on the receiving end of these claims which they previously had by virtue of the Limitation Act provisions
• Whether the definition of higher risk buildings is correct, or will require some refinement.

The Martlet v Mulalley case provides some useful observations and clarifications, for example that designers cannot necessarily rely on a ‘lemming’ defence that they were simply doing what others were doing at the time, that ‘waking watch’ costs are generally recoverable, and commentary on certain specific Building Regulations. The judgment however made clear that much of the case turned on its specific facts, so it is useful from the perspective of providing some insight as to how the Courts will deal with cladding disputes in future, rather than setting significant precedents to be followed.

The CMA is particularly concerned about certain activities, its guidance highlights:

• Exchange of commercially sensitive information where this is not necessary in response to the crisis
• Collaboration which unfairly excludes third parties
• Abuse of a dominant position (including a dominant position held as a result of the crisis) – particularly to charge excessive prices
• Seeking to maintain prices or prevent reductions in prices
• Cooperation going beyond what is necessary to respond to the crisis in the interests of consumers

This is a concern for many businesses at the moment.

Firstly, the directors need to be mindful of their duties to creditors . Click here for further information on those duties and the measures introduced by the government to help support directors during these difficult times.

There is also a raft of funding and grants as well as commercial finance that might be available to you. Click here for further information or contact us if you would like to discuss further.

If you are coming under increasing creditor pressure, there are other options to explore like the new “moratorium” procedure, which allows viable businesses in financial difficulty to work with an insolvency practitioner to obtain at least 20 business days’ breathing space from creditors to allow the business to formulate a plan to deal with its financial problems.

If you have any concerns about the viability of your business you should speak to your advisors, whether that is your lawyers, accountants or an insolvency practitioner who should be able to help you.

Employees will be reluctant to take unpaid leave or a sabbatical but when faced with the alternative prospect of redundancy may give it some serious consideration. This would remove the cost of that employee from the employer’s business for an agreed period of time. This is an option which can be offered to employees but again, imposing it without agreement creates significant risk.