How will normal salary be calculated for those with no normal working hours, such as zero hours workers?

The vast majority of disputes settle without ever reaching a final hearing with something in the region of 2-5% of all cases actually ending up in court at a final trial.  So whilst it is very unlikely you would need to attend a court hearing, it is always a possibility.

You will be eligible if you are a self-employed individual or a member of a partnership and you:

• have trading profits of up to £50,000
• earn the majority of your income from self-employment
• have submitted a Tax Return for 2019
• have traded in the tax year 2019/20
• are trading when you apply for a grant, or would be except for Covid-19
• intend to continue to trade in the tax year 2020/2021
• have lost trading/partnership profits due to Covid-19

The Coronavirus pandemic will have impacted businesses in many different ways, but some of the most likely impacts that could have a legal implication are as follows:

• Services were not performed in accordance with contract during the period of disruption. This could be a reduction in volume of services performed, a suspension of services, or performance in a way that does not comply with contractual KPIs
• Late delivery or non-delivery of goods because of factory closures, or disruption in the supply chain
• Changes being agreed between parties to contracts to deal with the consequences of the Covid-19 outbreak

The NHS Test and Trace service is operated by the NHS in England to track and help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Where an individual displays symptoms of coronavirus they can be tested to determine whether or not they have the disease. Those with the disease will then be contacted by NHS contact tracers and asked who they have come into close contract with.
Close contact is defined as:

• Face to face (within 1 metre)
• Spent more than 15 minutes within 2 metres of another person
• Travelled in a car or on a plane with another person

The contact tracer will then contact those people with whom the individual has come into close contact and tell them to self-isolate for 14 days.

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.