Does this apply to bankruptcy petitions?

The Government expects the use of bespoke contractual documents to implement temporary arrangements relating to your PFI contracts.

With time and resource precious commodities, focus should be given to documenting:

• The key changes to your PFI requirements
• The temporary nature of the measures
• The requirement for best efforts on behalf of the PFI Contractor
• The importance of continued health and safety measures at all times

The guidance states that people should aim to wear a face-covering in indoor spaces where social distancing is not always possible and they come into contact with others, for example on public transport or in some shops, and potentially in the workplace. Face coverings do not mean face masks such as clinical masks worn by certain key workers as PPE, which should be reserved for those people.

Staff working in areas that are open to the public must wear face coverings, this includes:

• shops
• supermarkets
• bars
• pubs
• restaurants
• cafes
• banks
• estate agents
• post offices
• public areas of hotels and hostels

If these businesses have taken steps in line with Health and Safety Executive guidance for COVID-19 secure workplaces to create a physical barrier between workers and members of the public then staff behind the barrier will not be required to wear a face covering.

For other indoor settings, employers should assess the use of face coverings on a case by case basis depending on the workplace environment, other appropriate mitigations they have put in place, and whether reasonable exemptions apply.

If an employee is required under government guidance to wear a face mask during the course of their employment and there is no applicable exemption, any fine issued would be payable by the employee, not the employer.

Whilst it is acknowledged that doctors may be working in unfamiliar circumstances or surroundings, or in clinical areas outside their usual practice. Doctors should consider the best course of action to take in these circumstances by utilising the following:

• What is within their knowledge and skills
• What support other members of the healthcare team could offer
• What will be best for the individual patient given available options
• The protection and needs of all patients they have a responsibility towards
• Minimising the risk of transmission and protecting their health.

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.