What measures are being implemented to protect residential property tenants?

The guidance is helpful and is likely to be useful to businesses as they seek to respond to the crisis and to restart their business activities as lockdown is eased. However, there remain outstanding questions. For example, can collaboration to prevent widespread insolvencies be viewed as in the interest of consumers? Businesses need to remain aware of the extremely high stakes involved in relation to competition law. Businesses contemplating collaboration with competitors should take legal advice before doing so.

On 4 May 2020, the Government launched the Bounce Back Loan Scheme (BBLS), which is intended to cut red tape to enable smaller businesses to access finance quickly during the coronavirus outbreak.

The scheme helps small and medium-sized businesses to borrow between £2,000 and up to 25% of their turnover. The maximum loan available is £50,000.

The government guarantees 100% of the loan and there are no any fees or interest to pay for the first 12 months. After 12 months the interest rate will be 2.5% a year.

The length of the loan is 6 years, but it can be repaid early without penalty. No repayments will be due during the first 12 months.

Under the scheme, lenders are not permitted to take any form of personal guarantee or take recovery action over a borrower’s personal assets (such as their main home or personal vehicle).

Businesses can apply for a BBLS loan if it:

• is based in the UK
• was established before 1 March 2020, and
• has been adversely impacted by the coronavirus.

Any business regarded as being a business in difficulty on 31 December 2019 will need to confirm that it is complying with additional state aid restrictions.

Businesses from any sector can apply, except the following:

• banks, insurers and reinsurers (but not insurance brokers)
• public-sector bodies, and
• state-funded primary and secondary schools.

Businesses already claiming under the following schemes cannot apply although it is possible to convert an existing loan under such schemes into BBLS:

• Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS)
• Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CLBILS)
• COVID-19 Corporate Financing Facility.

There are 11 lenders participating in the scheme including many of the main retail banks, which are listed on the British Business Bank’s website (www.british-business-bank.co.uk/ourpartners/coronavirus-business-interruption-loan-schemes/bounce-back-loans/for-businesses-and-advisors/). Applicants are directed to approach a suitable lender via the lender’s website. If an applicant is declined by a lender, they can apply to other lenders in the scheme.

The lender will ask applicants to fill in a short online application form and self-declare that they are eligible. All lending decisions remain fully delegated to the accredited lenders.

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.

The definition of a relevant establishment is a question of fact for an Employment Tribunal. Guidance from case law says that ‘establishment’ should be interpreted very broadly (so as to avoid employers escaping the need to collectively consult), and may consist of:

• A distinct entity
• With a certain degree of permanence and stability
• Which is assigned to perform one or more tasks
• Which has a workforce, technical means and a certain organisational structure to allow it to do so

However, there is no need for it to have the following:

• Legal, economic, financial, administrative or technological autonomy
• A management which can independently effect collective redundancies
• Geographical separation from the other units and facilities of the undertaking

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.