Skip to content

What actions and measures should be avoided?

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

Related FAQs

What are the new rules about wearing face masks in the workplace?

The new rules for wearing face masks/face coverings in the workplace introduced on 23 September 2020 are as follows:

  • Staff in retail, including shops, supermarkets and shopping centres, will now have to wear a face covering
  • Staff in hospitality will now have to wear a face covering
  • Guidance stating that face coverings and visors should be worn in close contact services, such as hairdressers and beauticians, will now become law
  • Staff working on public transport and taxi drivers will continue to be advised to wear face coverings

You can take off your mask if:

  • You who need to eat, drink, or take medication
  • A police officer or other official asks you to
Alternatives to redundancy toolkit

We have developed a Toolkit to help with these issues. The Toolkit contains:

  • LO1 How to Guide: Lay off and short time working
  • LO2 Letter directing employee to take annual leave
  • LO3 Letter confirming lay off (contractual right)
  • LO4 Letter confirming short time working (contractual right)
  • LO5 Letter proposing lay off (no contractual right)
  • LO6 Letter proposing short time working (no contractual right)
  • LO7 Counter notice disputing entitlement to claim redundancy payment
  • LO8 Script for announcing lay off or short time working (contractual right)
  • LO9 Script for announcing lay off or short time working (no contractual right)
  • LO10 Letter proposing reduction in working hours and pay

The cost of this Toolkit is £500 plus vat. If you would like to find out more about the Toolkit, please speak to your usual Ward Hadaway employment contact, or get in touch one of the contacts at the bottom of this page.

What will be the added cost to business of furloughing staff from 1 July 2021?

Similar to the position for claims between 1 August 2020 and 31 October 2020, for claims between 1 July 2021 and 30 September 2021 there will be a cost to businesses of furloughing staff, which will gradually increase until the scheme closes at the end of September as follows.

  • From 1 July 2021 employers will be required to contribute 10% of wages, with the Government contributing 70%.
  • From 1 August 2021, the employer contribution increases to 20% and the Government will contribute 60%.
  • 30 September 2021: scheme closes.

Employees will continue to receive 80% of their current wages, up to £2,500 a month.

 

Can colleagues meet outside of work during the national lockdown?

Yes, but only for work purposes and where it is unreasonable to do so from home. Work colleagues cannot meet to socialise.

What perceived gaps do you see in the Building Safety Act 2022 (especially in terms of pending consultations and secondary instruments)?Comments on the value of the Martlet v Mulalley judgment in fire safety cases/unsafe cladding cases

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.