Is the current pandemic an event which will allow me to argue that the lease has been ‘frustrated’?
This is unlikely. Frustration is a doctrine rarely used as a way of getting out of leases. It operates to bring a lease to an early end because of the effect of a supervening event. It is then not a concept readily applicable to a situation where one party is looking to get out of a lease. To be able to argue the doctrine of frustration, you must be able to demonstrate that something unforeseeable has happened that makes it impossible to fulfil the lease and unjust to hold a party to its obligations.
This is not something that can be demonstrated easily.
There was a case in the High Court last year when the doctrine of frustration was looked at in a case involving the European Medical Agency.
The court found that Brexit did not frustrate EMA’s lease. EMA was granted leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal, but unfortunately, the parties settled out of court so the arguments were not tested in the higher court.
Another reason why frustration is likely to fail is an argument that, whilst the current lockdown may force closures to businesses and whilst such closures maybe for a lengthy period, such closures will only be temporary.
Related FAQs
- Audit
- Identify your off-payroll contractors
- Determine the status of off-payroll contractors
- CEST – HMRC employment status checker for tax purposes
- Communication – liaise with affected workforce
- Contracts – get them compliant
- Consider the Ward Hadaway toolkit
As the project progresses, it is important to continually monitor the contractor’s performance. Any one or more of the items below can be early warning signs that the contractor is in financial difficulty, and that further actions may be necessary:
- Decrease in labour or contractor’s personnel on site, and/or rapid turnover of contractor’s personnel
- Slowdown in progress on site
- Plant, equipment or materials suddenly disappearing from site for no apparent reason – unpaid subcontractors may unilaterally decide to remove items from site regardless of their contractual rights to do so
- An increasing number of defects and reduction in the quality of the contractor’s work
- The contractor seeking changes in the payment arrangements, and in particular early payments
- The contractor making spurious claims or contra charges
- The contractor seeking assignment of its benefit of the building contract
- Late filing of accounts by the contractor at Companies House
- Unsatisfied court judgements against the contractor
- Subcontractors and suppliers not being paid or being paid late
- Rumours in the press, in the industry, on site or elsewhere regarding the solvency of the contractor
- Unusual visits to site, for example from the contractor’s senior management or other personnel who had not previously been present or are not expected to be present
- Increasingly aggressive behaviour by the contractor
- The contractor’s parent company or another company within the contractor’s group displaying any of the above signs
Potentially, yes. If someone refuses to follow the health and safety measures that have been put in place to protect them, colleagues and possibly their customers, including (where appropriate) the use of PPE then this is a disciplinary issue and should be dealt with as such. Repeated failure to comply with the requirement to follow these measures, or a one off significant failure, may be sufficient to justify dismissal, depending on the circumstances.
The now defunct Guidance for the Tier system suggested that the clinically extremely vulnerable would be treated in the same way as those who were shielding in Lockdown 1. This means that anyone who is clinically extremely vulnerable and cannot work remotely, will be entitled to SSP. These employees should receive a letter confirming that they are deemed to be clinically extremely vulnerable/shielding and you should ask for a copy of it as evidence to support a claim for SSP. It is likely that the Lockdown 3 Guidance will be the same.
You could also furlough an employee in the clinically extremely vulnerable category. Again we do not anticipate this changing.
Due to the new guidance on social distancing and remote working, the Planning Inspectorate initially stated that site visits, hearings and inquiries would be cancelled. However, there is very much a push from the Secretary of State to keep the planning system moving notwithstanding the requirements to adapt to new ways of working. The Government now expects all hearings to be conducted virtually and where a virtual hearing is not possible, the expectation is that alternative arrangements will be put “speedily” in place and in accordance with social distancing requirements.
The Planning Inspectorate have been exploring ways of conducting hearings and inquiries remotely using technological means and conducted their first “digital” hearing on 11 May .
The Business and Planning Act 2020, which entered the statute books on 22 July 2020, includes provisions which allow more flexibility in relation to how appeals are determined including an ability for the Secretary of State to decide to adopt a procedure which is a combination of written representations, a hearing and/or an inquiry.
Site visits have re-commenced where it is safe to do so. The Inspectorate is looking at whether a site visit is necessary and has conducted a trial of “virtual site visits” where sites are assessed by means of photographs or video evidence.
The Planning Inspectorate have subsequently been scaling up conducting digital hearings, which also includes holding virtual local plan examination hearings.