What is my legal position if emergency legislation to tackle the outbreak makes performance of a contract illegal or impossible?
As the coronavirus outbreak continues to develop, we have seen many countries begin to implement emergency procedures and legislation in an attempt to control the spread of the disease.
These have included bans on gatherings and public events, closures of shops, bars, restaurants and public spaces, and full lockdowns which restrict all but key workers to their homes except in certain limited circumstances.
This has a direct impact on businesses and their ability to operate. So what happens if a contract becomes impossible to perform because of emergency legislation?
For example:
- If you are a hospitality business, you have agreed to host an event, and gatherings are prohibited
- If you are a manufacturer or service provider, and your staff are required to remain at home, making performance of the contract impossible
Related FAQs
A quicker and more cost-effective option may be the involvement of the police given their recent allocation of emergency powers to disperse, fine or even arrest persons who flout these rules. Nevertheless, it appears that the Court is willing to support housing providers in their efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour during this time.
A new employer may claim under the scheme in respect of the employees of a previous business transferred after 10 June 2020 as long as:
- the TUPE or PAYE business succession rules apply to the change in ownership
- the employees being claimed have previously had a claim submitted for them by their prior employer in relation to a furlough period of at least 3 consecutive weeks taking place any time between 1 March 2020 and 30 June
In these circumstances, the maximum number of employees that the new employer can claim for will be the total of both:
- the maximum number of employees the new employer claimed for in any one claim ending on or before 30 June
- the number of employees that are being transferred to the new employer which have had a claim submitted for them in relation to a furlough period of at least 3 consecutive weeks taking place any time between 1 March 2020 and 30 June. This is subject the maximum cap the previous employer was subject to.
A new employer is also eligible to claim under scheme in respect of the employees associated with a transfer of a business after 10 June 2020 from the liquidator of a company in compulsory liquidation where:
- TUPE would have applied were it not for the company being in compulsory liquidation
- the employees being claimed for have been furloughed and a had a claim submitted for them by their prior employer in relation to a period of at least 3 consecutive weeks taking place any time between 1 March 2020 and 30 June
In these circumstances, the maximum number of employees that the new employer can claim for will be the total of both:
- the maximum number of employees the new employer claimed for in any one claim ending on or before 30 June and
- the number of employees that are being transferred to the new employer which have had a claim submitted for them by their prior employer in relation to a furlough period of at least 3 consecutive weeks taking place any time between 1 March 2020 and 30 June. This is subject to the maximum cap the previous employer was subject to.
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.
If you are eligible you will get a taxable grant of 80% of the average profits from the following tax years (where applicable):
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
HMRC will add the total profit in each of the three tax years (if applicable). This will then determine the monthly payment, subject to the cap of £2500.
Some commercial tenants have queried whether the current situation is a force majeure which may allow it to terminate the lease. Clauses which allow a party to terminate a lease for a force majeure event or, to put it another way, an “act of God”, are however extremely rare in modern commercial leases. Even if there is such a provision in your lease, it would need to be drafted to apply to an outbreak of disease.