Who do the Procurement Policy Notes (PPN) apply to?

The Chief Coroner supports the position, communicated by NHS England and the Chief Medical Officer that Covid-19 is an acceptable direct or underlying cause of death for the purposes of completing the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD) and is considered a naturally occurring disease. This cause of death alone is not a reason to refer a death to a coroner under CJA 2009.

If the cause of death is believed to be due to confirmed Covid-19 infection, there is unlikely to be any need for a post mortem to be conducted and the MCCD should be issued, and guidance is given on how this is delivered to the Registrar in the event of the next of kin/informant being in self-isolation. 

In a hospital setting the MCCD process should be straightforward because of diagnosis and treatment in life. This may be more complex in a community setting. The Coronavirus Act 2020 however expanded the window for last medical review from 14 to 28 days. Outside of this, the death will need to be reported to the coroner.

Although Covid-19 is a naturally occurring disease, there may be additional factors around the death which mean it should be reported to the coroner; for example, the cause of death is unclear, or where there are other relevant factors. Guidance is given to coroners on how to manage such reported deaths, particularly where post mortem examinations may not be readily availability.

Yes. The Land Registry published a new service update on 14 May, here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-impact-on-hm-land-registrys-service

Importantly, the Land Registry will process registrations where documents have been executed using the Mercury signing approach:

For land registration purposes, a signature page will need to be signed in pen and witnessed in person (not by a video call). The signature will then need to be captured, with a scanner or a camera, to produce a PDF, JPEG or other suitable copy of the signed signature page. Each party sends a single email to their conveyancer to which is attached the final agreed copy of the document and the copy of the signed signature page.

To summarise some further points:

• Most information enquiries are experiencing minimal delays
• Registrations of new titles, such as on sales of part or new leases, and applications to update existing titles, are experiencing more significant delays but can be expedited via the expedite service
• Cancellation dates for replying to requisitions are extended until further notice
• Access to free documents on the land registry portal has been extended to 90 days from completion of the transaction
• Identity requirements have been relaxed. The Land Registry will now raise a requisition for identity documents, and not cancel applications
• Requests for extensions to a notice or objection period will be granted if lawfully possible
• Land charges searches can be submitted electronically with PDF documents

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.

Where a lender requires a EWS1 as part of the mortgage requirements for a flat this will apply regardless of its tenure and will therefore apply to applicable RTB properties. It may also be required in order to obtain a valuation for the disposal notices and issues in obtaining it could cause problems in serving this within relevant deadlines required by legislation.

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.