Is the current pandemic an event which will allow me to argue that the lease has been ‘frustrated’?
This is unlikely. Frustration is a doctrine rarely used as a way of getting out of leases. It operates to bring a lease to an early end because of the effect of a supervening event. It is then not a concept readily applicable to a situation where one party is looking to get out of a lease. To be able to argue the doctrine of frustration, you must be able to demonstrate that something unforeseeable has happened that makes it impossible to fulfil the lease and unjust to hold a party to its obligations.
This is not something that can be demonstrated easily.
There was a case in the High Court last year when the doctrine of frustration was looked at in a case involving the European Medical Agency.
The court found that Brexit did not frustrate EMA’s lease. EMA was granted leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal, but unfortunately, the parties settled out of court so the arguments were not tested in the higher court.
Another reason why frustration is likely to fail is an argument that, whilst the current lockdown may force closures to businesses and whilst such closures maybe for a lengthy period, such closures will only be temporary.
Related FAQs
A common feature of corporate acquisitions is that part of the consideration is paid on deferred terms or by way of earn out over a period of years following completion. Where deferred consideration is payable, this is either on the basis that outstanding payments will be made on scheduled dates or, less usually, subject to certain agreed (typically financial) objectives being met. These objectives almost always relate to a period before completion of the deal and are dealt with as part of a completion accounts mechanism.
Sponsors should update the proposed start date by adding a sponsor note to the CoS via the Sponsor Management System.
Does a sponsor need to report a change in workplace if a Tier 2 visa holder is working from home as a result of Covid-19?
Where an employer is proposing to dismiss:
- 100 or more employees at one establishment within a 90-day period, consultation must begin at least 45 days before the first dismissal takes effect
- Between 20 and 99 employees within a 90-day period, consultation must begin at least 30 days before the first dismissal takes effect
- If you are proposing to dismiss less than 20 employees then there are no minimum time limits but you must adhere to a fair process which will involve individual consultation and providing the employee with a right of an appeal
This would depend on the reason as to why the employee is refusing to come into work. An unauthorised absence is where an employee fails to attend work and they do not have a statutory or contractual right, or their employer’s permission, to do so. An employer will not be obliged to pay employees their normal pay for periods of unauthorised absence.
There are some absences which may be viewed as authorised which would entitle the employee to their full pay. For instance, employees who believe that they are in serious and imminent danger by coming to work would be entitled to stay at home and receive pay if their belief is deemed reasonable.
An employer should always try to discuss any unauthorised absences with an employee. They may then consider whether to take disciplinary action against the employee.
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