What support did the Chancellor announce for employers to be attracted to take on apprentices?

In the unfortunate event that there will be a significant number of deaths, planning will fall to the local resilience forum; which includes all relevant local organisations and statutory bodies, who will have prior experience in working in excessive death scenarios.

It is for the coroners to ensure that they are familiar with the local resilience forum plans and discussions required. This will include issues regarding storage capacity and post-mortem examination capacity.

Yes: The Cabinet Office has published a number of Procurement Policy Notes to provide instructions to Public Bodies to enable payments to continue to be made to at risk suppliers (and their supply chains) who have been affected by Covid-19. Copies of this guidance can be obtained from the Government website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-policy-note-0220-supplier-relief-due-to-covid-19

Some examples of the key questions to ask include:

• Is there still a viable underlying business that is likely to continue beyond the current crisis?
• What does the revised short to medium cash flow look like and will the company continue to be able to pay its liabilities?
• Does the company have the support of all of its stakeholders – lenders, shareholders, customers, suppliers and banks – even though the business might be in breach of its own obligations?
• What measures could (and should) the board put in place to protect creditors, including making sure that exposure to creditors (both collectively and individually) is not increased, assets are not sold at less than value and no creditor is treated more favourably than another?
• Is there still a reasonable prospect of the business avoiding liquidation or administration?

The key question is always whether accepting the money is in the best interests of creditors as a whole bearing in mind that accepting Government support and continuing to trade might increase the company’s overall liabilities. Directors should be mindful that if the business fails, their decisions during this critical time may be scrutinised and it is therefore important that directors have up-to-date financial information and projections to form the basis of any decisions, take stock, get the right advice and document the decisions that are taken.

This is critical. The guidance remains clear – IF YOU CAN WORK FROM HOME YOU SHOULD CONTINUE TO DO SO. Bringing people back into work unnecessarily is a big mistake.

Think about how many employees should physically return to the workplace – the fewer the people on site, the lower the risk AND the less pressure on public transport.

Employers will need to be very careful to recognise workers in vulnerable groups or who develop or live in a household with someone who develops symptoms of Covid-19 – again, look at government guidelines. You should understand that this will mean a higher number of staff absences and consider how this might be managed.

Look to keep smaller teams of workers together, minimise physical meetings and if you MUST have them, keep them short and under 15 minutes. Be imaginative – use online platforms like Teams and Zoom wherever you can.

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.