What are the additional costs for the end user if the contractor is deemed employed?

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.

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 change in the law has the potential to place much greater financial risks on suppliers, making it more difficult to exit a contract with a customer of doubtful solvency.  This will place increased emphasis on appropriate financial due diligence and credit checking before entering into supply contracts.

In addition to the obvious issues around financial risk, suppliers will also need to think carefully about how their contracts are drafted.  For example, any form of right that is drafted so as to be triggered on customer insolvency will clearly be problematic.  These could include:

• Retention of Title provisions, which are commonly drafted so that the right to enter premises and retake possession of the goods is triggered on insolvency;
• Provisions for brand protection, which seek to control how goods are dealt with on termination of the contract.

This is potentially a very significant development for many businesses.  We would strongly recommend specialist advice be obtained so that:

• businesses understand the potential increased risks faced; and
• where possible, contracts are updated so that appropriate protections are maintained.

The Vice President of the COP, Mr Justice Hayden, has issued guidance to assist parties during this challenging time.

The latest guidance with all relevant updates on developments is available on the judiciary website here.

It is. If you assess a risk and identify a control measure then fail to deploy it, then you are breaching your legal duties under HASWA and potentially committing a criminal offence. So if you decide for example that N95 respirators have to be used by everyone, you have a duty to provide them.

So the short answer is yes.