How can the State aid rules be applied in light of the coronavirus outbreak?
The coronavirus outbreak has seen State support being given to businesses on an unprecedented scale.
This issue is likely to be increasingly relevant as Governments seek to protect and stimulate their economies as they emerge from lockdown.
How have the rules been relaxed in the context of the crisis and what facets of the existing law can be used for the State to provide support to undertakings?
Related FAQs
The Act is intended to facilitate the rescue of businesses that are in financial difficulty by preventing suppliers from invoking certain termination clauses under a supply contract, and therefore maintaining supply of goods and services to the business whilst plans to save the business can be considered.
Supply contracts often contain a clause enabling them to terminate the contract, or take other steps such as requiring payment in advance, in the event that the customer enters an insolvency procedure.
This new Act removes any such contractual right by dis-applying any clause that allows the supplier to terminate the contract, or take any other step, due to the customer entering an insolvency process.
Suppliers are also prevented from demanding payment for pre-insolvency debts owed by the customer as a condition of continued supply.
Additionally, where the supplier had a contractual right to terminate the contract due to an event occurring before the customer went into the insolvency process (whether or not linked to payment issues), the supplier loses this right for the duration of the insolvency process.
The guidance gives numerous examples of the types of performance adjustment which parties should consider. For example this includes:
- Varying deadlines (e.g. for performance or payment)
- Varying compensation (e.g. to recognise increased costs)
- Varying the nature of performance (e.g. allowing substitute goods, allowing pert delivery of services)
The guidance also encourages a reasonable approach to enforcement, which might encourage delaying issuing formal proceedings, increased use of mediation or providing more information to the other party than would be volunteered under normal circumstances.
Business operators such as travel operators, hotels and restaurants remain vulnerable to claims of failure to protect against contracting the virus. There is a high chance of claims from employees, clients and members of the public. These are likely to be covered under public liability and employer’s liability insurance.
The best advice is that parties should proceed as they would have done before the crisis began.
Put simply, if it is a requirement of a particular role that PPE is worn, then this should be provided to the employee. If an employer dismissed an employee for refusal to carry out their role due to lack of PPE then this is likely to be an automatically unfair health and safety dismissal.
Furthermore, anyone who is subject to a detriment as a result of raising a health and safety concern, e.g. someone in this situation who refuses to work due to lack of PPE and is sent home without pay, will also have a potentially valid claim in the Employment Tribunal for that detriment, even if they are not dismissed.