I hold a licence but can’t trade. Can I terminate it?
A licence to occupy premises is not an interest land and operates as a commercial contract between the parties that enter into it. Licences tend to be put in place to cover short periods and consequently they are generally a lot more flexible than commercial leasing arrangements. To that extent occupants under licences should review the contract to establish whether or not there are any provision allowing them to terminate on notice to the Licensor.
Occupants under licences that are granted for longer periods without the option to terminate may try to argue that the contract has frustrated because they are effectively unable to occupy.
Related FAQs
The European Commission has reintroduced its “comfort letter” system for cooperation in relation to shortage of supply. This allows cooperating businesses to check what the Commission’s view of their proposals are before implementing them.
In the UK context the SMA has introduced an exemption for suppliers of healthcare services to the NHS. This allows:
- Sharing information about capacity
- Coordination of staff deployment
- Joint purchasing of goods, services and facilities
- Sharing or lending of facilities
- Division of activities, including agreeing whether to expand or reduce the volume or type of services provided by suppliers
In relation to whether the CMA will investigate cooperation, it has indicated:
- The CMA will use its discretion as to the prioritisation of its enforcement action to permit some agreements/collaboration which would otherwise potentially give rise to enforcement action (including potentially attracting fines of up to 10% of group worldwide turnover)
- The CMA will use its existing power to exempt certain agreements under the Competition Act 1998 where these are in the public interest
Yes probably in our opinion, even if you are not considering taking any formal action against them. Ultimately if a doctor is suspended this could be considered as causing them reputational damage and it therefore is correct that they are afforded the protections (in particular in relation to keeping exclusion/suspension under review) of MHPS. Under Part V of MHPS there is provision for excluding practitioners if they are a danger to patients and they refuse to recognise it or if they refuse to co-operate. It doesn’t refer to a particular risk for the practitioner themselves, but it would appear logical that it would apply.
Many businesses that supply directly to consumers have been concerned to understand their legal position in relation to services that have been cancelled, or that they have been unable to perform, because of the Covid-19 pandemic, and in particular how to deal with deposits paid by consumers for such services. With some degree of restriction on the hospitality and tourism sectors likely to remain in place for some time, such questions will remain important for the foreseeable future.
The FCA’s test case in the Supreme Court ruled overwhelmingly in favour of policyholders. However, business interruption cover generally has the prerequisite of physical damage or loss to the property (or in some circumstances, the presence of a notifiable disease at the property or within a certain radius of it), to recover losses caused by the interruption to your business. The onus is on insurers to re-assess those claims which are impacted by the Supreme Court’s judgment and to make contact with the policyholders regarding next steps. If you have not already made a claim, in the first instance the terms of any policy should be checked carefully to see whether business interruption cover is provided.
The government has produced a series of industry specific “Covid-19 Secure” guidelines, which employers should follow. These guidelines are designed to keep the risk of infection as low as possible, while allowing as many people as possible to resume their livelihoods.