I have trespassers occupying my land. Can I evict them?

On 2 April 2020, the Government issued guidance relating to Private Finance Initiatives and PF2 Projects. The guidance, which is to be enforced with immediate effect (currently due to stay in place until 30 June 2020), is one of several guidance notes issued to date.

A link to the guidance is set out below:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877804/2020_04_01_PFI_and_COVID19_final.docx.pdf

Key messages to contracting authorities

• PFI contractors should very much consider themselves as being part of the public sector response to the current pandemic
• Covid-19 is not regarded as, and is not to be classified as a force majeure event
• PFI contractors must ensure that contingency plans are up to date and have been reviewed and discussed with contracting authorities to enable the continuity of full services to respond to the pandemic and maintain vital public services
• Contracting authorities should work closely with PFI contractors to use all available options to maintain public services during the emergency period
• Local arrangements should be made where PFI contractors can’t deliver the agreed requirements and performance standards
• “Best efforts” should be made by all parties for the continuation of service provision

Despite remote hearings being the default position at present, formal permission will still be required by the court and a template order was circulated with the guidance. This template sets out the relevant directions and recitals to include in your order. An application to the COP for a remote hearing will not be required.

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.

For those with variable pay, if the employee has been employed for a full 12 months before the period claimed for you, can take the higher of:

• The same month’s earnings in the previous year; or
• Average monthly earnings from the 2019/20 tax year.

For those who have been employed for less than one year you can use the average of their monthly earnings since they began their employment until the date they were furloughed.

If they have been employed for less than a month, work out a pro rata for their earnings so far, and claim for 80%.

Commercial partner Damien Charlton explains the basic principles of force majeure, and how they are relevant in the current extreme circumstances caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.