Skip to content

Can I ask my employees to travel for work during the national lockdown?

As above, people must not leave their home unless they have a ‘reasonable excuse’ and travelling should be limited to their local area. Employees may leave their home and local area to travel for work if they cannot reasonably work from home. You should attempt to reduce the number of journeys they make.

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
What happens if a patient is admitted to hospital during the pandemic?
What are the contractual issues that businesses need to think about as they get back to business following lockdown?

It is clear that we are emerging from a completely unprecedented period of disruption for many businesses, and this may have had a huge impact on their contractual arrangements both with suppliers and customers.

As the lockdown eases, and we get back to business, it’s important that businesses take stock of what has happened, and ensure they review and address the legal and contractual consequences of what has been happening since the start of the global pandemic.

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.

Does this apply to bankruptcy petitions?

No. This bill relates to corporate insolvencies only. Should you require any advice as to personal insolvency situations, please contact our team.