Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1886651
Masood Ahmed
The civil justice system has reacted with unprecedented speed to the Covid-19 crisis to ensure that the courts continue to provide a vital public service in the administration of justice. The government’s measures of social distancing to tackle the spread of Covid19 has meant that only the most critical hearings have been taking place in person. In adjusting to the new default position of remote hearings, the civil justice system has experienced a substantial and significant procedural change in the increased use of technology to help facilitate remote hearings and to support the judicial case management of disputes. This is not to suggest that the Covid-19 crisis alone has led to the increased use of technology, although there is no doubt that it is a major catalyst. Over the past decade, the civil justice system has been on a course of substantial reform with an increasing focus on digitising court procedure. For example, court documents can be filed electronically (known as CE-Filing) in the Business and Property Courts and the Supreme Court; electronic working enables parties to issue proceedings and file documents online; and courts users are able to issue and defend proceedings for low value money claims through the Online Civil Money Claims
{"title":"Alternative Dispute Resolution During the Covid-19 Crisis and Beyond","authors":"Masood Ahmed","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1886651","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1886651","url":null,"abstract":"The civil justice system has reacted with unprecedented speed to the Covid-19 crisis to ensure that the courts continue to provide a vital public service in the administration of justice. The government’s measures of social distancing to tackle the spread of Covid19 has meant that only the most critical hearings have been taking place in person. In adjusting to the new default position of remote hearings, the civil justice system has experienced a substantial and significant procedural change in the increased use of technology to help facilitate remote hearings and to support the judicial case management of disputes. This is not to suggest that the Covid-19 crisis alone has led to the increased use of technology, although there is no doubt that it is a major catalyst. Over the past decade, the civil justice system has been on a course of substantial reform with an increasing focus on digitising court procedure. For example, court documents can be filed electronically (known as CE-Filing) in the Business and Property Courts and the Supreme Court; electronic working enables parties to issue proceedings and file documents online; and courts users are able to issue and defend proceedings for low value money claims through the Online Civil Money Claims","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"55 1","pages":"147 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82761340","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1891612
S. Farran, Rhona K. M. Smith
During the course of 2020 there have been plenty of restrictions on human rights, but there has also been what might be described as ‘artistic anarchy’. Particularly in the period of March–June 2020 when the UK was in ‘lockdown’, streets became awash with diverse rainbows, teddy bears, ribbons, and graffiti. For ten weeks through the summer of 2020, Thursdays at 8pm became a riotous mix of doorstep clapping, pot bashing, bells, pipes, horns and fireworks. No longer antisocial behaviour, or nuisance, but a community celebration of, and thanksgiving to, all key workers. Small acts of solidarity in a time of national crisis, perhaps, but also a stark U-turn in what is usually deemed acceptable societal behaviour. Graffiti artists played a part. Pieces by Banksy, Rebel Bear, less well-known, and anonymous artists have been lauded by the media and some reports have described such work as ‘murals’ rather than graffiti, thereby conferring a degree of artistic respectability, on what might otherwise be damned as vandalism. The change of perspective was illustrated by the upset caused when routine graffiti cleaning on London underground inadvertently removed a new Banksy. While some of this—as with pre-pandemic graffiti—is in ‘legal spaces’ set aside for graffiti across the country, or commissioned work, much of the graffiti on COVID-19 is in public places, on
{"title":"Graffiti in a Time of Covid-19: Spray Paint and the Law","authors":"S. Farran, Rhona K. M. Smith","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1891612","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1891612","url":null,"abstract":"During the course of 2020 there have been plenty of restrictions on human rights, but there has also been what might be described as ‘artistic anarchy’. Particularly in the period of March–June 2020 when the UK was in ‘lockdown’, streets became awash with diverse rainbows, teddy bears, ribbons, and graffiti. For ten weeks through the summer of 2020, Thursdays at 8pm became a riotous mix of doorstep clapping, pot bashing, bells, pipes, horns and fireworks. No longer antisocial behaviour, or nuisance, but a community celebration of, and thanksgiving to, all key workers. Small acts of solidarity in a time of national crisis, perhaps, but also a stark U-turn in what is usually deemed acceptable societal behaviour. Graffiti artists played a part. Pieces by Banksy, Rebel Bear, less well-known, and anonymous artists have been lauded by the media and some reports have described such work as ‘murals’ rather than graffiti, thereby conferring a degree of artistic respectability, on what might otherwise be damned as vandalism. The change of perspective was illustrated by the upset caused when routine graffiti cleaning on London underground inadvertently removed a new Banksy. While some of this—as with pre-pandemic graffiti—is in ‘legal spaces’ set aside for graffiti across the country, or commissioned work, much of the graffiti on COVID-19 is in public places, on","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"1 1","pages":"84 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88273049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1885327
Ann Mumford
Summer 2020 was marked by compounding, global tragedy. Since the beginning of the year, the Coronavirus pandemic has claimed millions of lives, and destroyed economies. Additionally, on the 25th May, George Floyd died following his arrest outside of a shop in Minneapolis, Minnesota, triggering mass protests and demonstrations around the world. The aim of this article is to consider whether two tragedies, of global impact – the COVID-19 pandemic, and the death of George Floyd – might provide an impetus to consider a slightly less traditional aspect of the story of Edward Colston, the seventeenth century Bristolian merchant whose statue was thrown into the River Avon at the height of the summer protests in the UK, a bit more closely. Covid-19 has impacted persons from BAME backgrounds disproportionately, in the UK and around the world; and, the profound global reaction to the release of
{"title":"Edward Colston And the Coronavirus: A Reflection on Narratives of Taxation in Taxing Times","authors":"Ann Mumford","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1885327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1885327","url":null,"abstract":"Summer 2020 was marked by compounding, global tragedy. Since the beginning of the year, the Coronavirus pandemic has claimed millions of lives, and destroyed economies. Additionally, on the 25th May, George Floyd died following his arrest outside of a shop in Minneapolis, Minnesota, triggering mass protests and demonstrations around the world. The aim of this article is to consider whether two tragedies, of global impact – the COVID-19 pandemic, and the death of George Floyd – might provide an impetus to consider a slightly less traditional aspect of the story of Edward Colston, the seventeenth century Bristolian merchant whose statue was thrown into the River Avon at the height of the summer protests in the UK, a bit more closely. Covid-19 has impacted persons from BAME backgrounds disproportionately, in the UK and around the world; and, the profound global reaction to the release of","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"83 11 1","pages":"157 - 167"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89602787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1885328
Catharine MacMillan
Covid-19 has created an unexpected global pandemic which has brought unprecedented and wide ranging restrictions from governments around the world. One result of these events has been profound disruptions to individual contracts. This article considers the nature and history of the doctrine of frustration in English law. The lack of certainty in ascertaining whether or not an event is a frustrating one is examined. A consideration of the particular problems innumerable parties will face in attempting to decide whether or not their contract has been discharged by frustration as a result of Covid-19 and the regulations designed to curtail the virus are made. The article concludes with an overview of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943.
{"title":"Covid-19 and the Problem of Frustrated Contracts","authors":"Catharine MacMillan","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1885328","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1885328","url":null,"abstract":"Covid-19 has created an unexpected global pandemic which has brought unprecedented and wide ranging restrictions from governments around the world. One result of these events has been profound disruptions to individual contracts. This article considers the nature and history of the doctrine of frustration in English law. The lack of certainty in ascertaining whether or not an event is a frustrating one is examined. A consideration of the particular problems innumerable parties will face in attempting to decide whether or not their contract has been discharged by frustration as a result of Covid-19 and the regulations designed to curtail the virus are made. The article concludes with an overview of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943.","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"62 1","pages":"60 - 70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89068274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1891617
D. Harvey
The COVID-19 pandemic and the United Kingdom’s (UK) withdrawal from the European Union (EU) constitute the two greatest challenges faced by the UK state in modern times. The former has resulted in ‘the largest peacetime shock to the global economy on record’, with UK Gross Domestic Product ‘set to fall by 11 per cent this year – the largest drop in annual output since the Great Frost of 1709.’1The latter involves the UK leaving both the EU customs union and the EU single market and attempting to replace these arrangements with a much less ambitious free-trade agreement, thus constituting ‘the single gravest act of economic segregation in modern history.’
Either of these challenges on their own would have undoubtedly caused widespread disruption to the legal and political order of any European nation state. One of the great misfortunes of our time, it seems, is that they both happen to have come along at the same time. The impact of COVID-19 and Brexit within the domestic legal order of the UK is neatly illustrated by AG v OG, a case concerned with the cross-applications for financial remedies by a divorced couple who had previously co-owned and operated a ducting business. The respondent in the case argued that when it came to calculating the value of the company, ‘a discount of 10% should be applied to reflect the effects of the economic downturn caused by the COVID -19 pandemic and the likely future disruption to be experienced on account of Brexit, particularly where there appears to be an appreciable risk that this country will not conclude a trade agreement with the European Union by 31 December 2020.’
This was because a significant portion of the company’s business was with customers based in the EU and, for the time being, that business was conducted on a tariff-free basis. The risk at the time of the UK and EU failing to reach an agreement in the ongoing negotiations (leading to a ‘no deal’ Brexit) was thus liable to have adverse consequences for the business. Similarly, it was argued that the COVID-19 pandemic had had a considerable impact upon the company, which had not only experienced a significant decrease in demand for the time being, but was likely to be negatively affected in the future by a predicted recession. In giving judgment in the case, Mostny J recognised that this was ‘an issue novel to this court but one which will likely become a recurring feature in cases like this.’ Ultimately, in accepting that the combination of Brexit and COVID-19 were likely to have a significant impact upon the value of the business at the centre of the dispute, Mostyn J agreed to the application of a ‘discount for COVID/Brexit on trading element at 10%.’
For the High Court, the uncertainty caused by the prospect of a no deal Brexit and the devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic were so closely intertwined that it was appropriate to consider their impact together when calculating the value of a company. Against this ba
新冠肺炎疫情和英国脱欧是当代英国面临的两大挑战。前者导致了“有记录以来和平时期对全球经济最大的冲击”，英国国内生产总值(gdp)“今年将下降11%——这是自1709年大霜冻以来年度产出的最大降幅”。后者涉及英国退出欧盟关税同盟和欧盟单一市场，并试图用一个野心小得多的自由贸易协定来取代这些安排，从而构成“现代历史上最严重的经济隔离行为”。这些挑战中的任何一个，都无疑会对任何欧洲民族国家的法律和政治秩序造成广泛的破坏。我们这个时代最大的不幸之一，似乎是它们碰巧同时出现。AG v OG案很好地说明了新冠肺炎疫情和英国脱欧对英国国内法律秩序的影响，该案涉及一对离婚夫妇，他们之前共同拥有并经营一家管道公司，并交叉申请财务救济。该案的被告辩称，在计算公司价值时，“应采用10%的折扣，以反映COVID -19大流行造成的经济衰退的影响，以及英国脱欧可能导致的未来中断，特别是在英国似乎存在明显风险的情况下，该国将无法在2020年12月31日之前与欧盟达成贸易协定。”“这是因为该公司的很大一部分业务是与欧盟的客户打交道，而且目前这项业务是在免关税的基础上进行的。”因此，当时英国和欧盟未能在正在进行的谈判中达成协议(导致“无协议”脱欧)的风险可能会对业务产生不利影响。同样，有人认为，COVID-19大流行对该公司产生了相当大的影响，该公司不仅暂时经历了需求的大幅下降，而且未来可能会受到预期的经济衰退的负面影响。在对此案作出判决时，法官认识到，这对本院来说是一个“新奇的问题，但在这类案件中可能会反复出现。”最终，在接受英国脱欧和COVID-19的结合可能对处于争议中心的业务价值产生重大影响的情况下，Mostyn J同意在交易要素上申请“COVID/Brexit”10%的折扣。“对高等法院来说，英国无协议脱欧的前景造成的不确定性和COVID-19大流行造成的破坏是如此紧密地交织在一起，以至于在计算公司价值时将它们的影响一并考虑是合适的。”在此背景下，本文探讨了新冠肺炎大流行对英国脱欧进程造成的破坏。第二部分涉及英国和欧盟之间关于英国-欧盟贸易与合作协定(TCA)条款和条件的谈判。我把这称为英国脱欧进程的外部维度。我们将看到，双方为应对这一流行病所作的努力，对谈判和缔结新的贸易合作协定的时间和资源造成了巨大压力，影响了在2021年1月1日协定生效之前审查其内容的时间。然后，第三节转向研究英国脱欧的内部层面，提请注意疫情对英国议会和行政部门为英国脱欧后的生活准备国内法律秩序的能力产生的影响。第四部分为结论。
{"title":"Brexit and Covid-19","authors":"D. Harvey","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1891617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1891617","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic and the United Kingdom’s (UK) withdrawal from the European Union (EU) constitute the two greatest challenges faced by the UK state in modern times. The former has resulted in ‘the largest peacetime shock to the global economy on record’, with UK Gross Domestic Product ‘set to fall by 11 per cent this year – the largest drop in annual output since the Great Frost of 1709.’1The latter involves the UK leaving both the EU customs union and the EU single market and attempting to replace these arrangements with a much less ambitious free-trade agreement, thus constituting ‘the single gravest act of economic segregation in modern history.’<br><br>Either of these challenges on their own would have undoubtedly caused widespread disruption to the legal and political order of any European nation state. One of the great misfortunes of our time, it seems, is that they both happen to have come along at the same time. The impact of COVID-19 and Brexit within the domestic legal order of the UK is neatly illustrated by AG v OG, a case concerned with the cross-applications for financial remedies by a divorced couple who had previously co-owned and operated a ducting business. The respondent in the case argued that when it came to calculating the value of the company, ‘a discount of 10% should be applied to reflect the effects of the economic downturn caused by the COVID -19 pandemic and the likely future disruption to be experienced on account of Brexit, particularly where there appears to be an appreciable risk that this country will not conclude a trade agreement with the European Union by 31 December 2020.’ <br><br>This was because a significant portion of the company’s business was with customers based in the EU and, for the time being, that business was conducted on a tariff-free basis. The risk at the time of the UK and EU failing to reach an agreement in the ongoing negotiations (leading to a ‘no deal’ Brexit) was thus liable to have adverse consequences for the business. Similarly, it was argued that the COVID-19 pandemic had had a considerable impact upon the company, which had not only experienced a significant decrease in demand for the time being, but was likely to be negatively affected in the future by a predicted recession. In giving judgment in the case, Mostny J recognised that this was ‘an issue novel to this court but one which will likely become a recurring feature in cases like this.’ Ultimately, in accepting that the combination of Brexit and COVID-19 were likely to have a significant impact upon the value of the business at the centre of the dispute, Mostyn J agreed to the application of a ‘discount for COVID/Brexit on trading element at 10%.’ <br><br>For the High Court, the uncertainty caused by the prospect of a no deal Brexit and the devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic were so closely intertwined that it was appropriate to consider their impact together when calculating the value of a company. Against this ba","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"33 1","pages":"26 - 36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72892900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1903690
K. Ewing
When the domestic history of the Covid-19 pandemic is written, a reasonable starting point will be the deep failures of the British State. These failures begin with the chronic lack of preparedness and the inadequate readiness of our public services. And they continue with slow reactions and ponderous decision-making, many people paying a heavy price as a result. A question government will have to answer is how much death and illness was avoidable. The failures of government in its subsequent response are wide-ranging and farreaching, whether it be the secrecy and alleged cronyism associated with procuring safety equipment for front line staff; the eye-watering expenditure of public money to pay for private contractors to run a much criticised test and trace system; or the predictable public health consequences of poor labour standards and unprotected workers. The United Kingdom suffered one of the highest death rates in the world, on a per capita basis. That was unlikely to be bad luck. It is more likely to be a consequence of government policy over many years which created the great structural problems on which the coronavirus preyed. These deep structural problems—poor health, bad and over-crowded housing, and low pay—may yet be shown to be the direct consequence of a decade of austerity, inequality and poverty. Much will be written about these problems and how they should be addressed in the future. But at the time of writing the British government shows no sign of having learned the lessons of failure. True, in the 2021 Budget the Chancellor committed vast sums of money to sustain the economy for another 12 months. But it now appears that the effect of the Budget at best will be to return to the status quo prepandemic. That is assuming optimistically of course that, at the time of writing with the rollout of vaccinations, we are at the beginning of the end-game, and the possibility of some aspects of life being re-normalised. But back to the past is no solution for the future, any more than it was after the Second World War, or the Great Depression, or the First World War. Nor does it honour the sacrifice that many have made, or the loss that many others have suffered. King’s Law Journal, 2021 Vol. 32, No. 1, 1–2, https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1903690
{"title":"Editor's Introduction","authors":"K. Ewing","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1903690","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1903690","url":null,"abstract":"When the domestic history of the Covid-19 pandemic is written, a reasonable starting point will be the deep failures of the British State. These failures begin with the chronic lack of preparedness and the inadequate readiness of our public services. And they continue with slow reactions and ponderous decision-making, many people paying a heavy price as a result. A question government will have to answer is how much death and illness was avoidable. The failures of government in its subsequent response are wide-ranging and farreaching, whether it be the secrecy and alleged cronyism associated with procuring safety equipment for front line staff; the eye-watering expenditure of public money to pay for private contractors to run a much criticised test and trace system; or the predictable public health consequences of poor labour standards and unprotected workers. The United Kingdom suffered one of the highest death rates in the world, on a per capita basis. That was unlikely to be bad luck. It is more likely to be a consequence of government policy over many years which created the great structural problems on which the coronavirus preyed. These deep structural problems—poor health, bad and over-crowded housing, and low pay—may yet be shown to be the direct consequence of a decade of austerity, inequality and poverty. Much will be written about these problems and how they should be addressed in the future. But at the time of writing the British government shows no sign of having learned the lessons of failure. True, in the 2021 Budget the Chancellor committed vast sums of money to sustain the economy for another 12 months. But it now appears that the effect of the Budget at best will be to return to the status quo prepandemic. That is assuming optimistically of course that, at the time of writing with the rollout of vaccinations, we are at the beginning of the end-game, and the possibility of some aspects of life being re-normalised. But back to the past is no solution for the future, any more than it was after the Second World War, or the Great Depression, or the First World War. Nor does it honour the sacrifice that many have made, or the loss that many others have suffered. King’s Law Journal, 2021 Vol. 32, No. 1, 1–2, https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1903690","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"571 1","pages":"1 - 2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81963443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1889145
Özlem Gürses
From the early days of the first national lockdown in England, widespread concerns over many different types of insurance claims had been raised. The business interruption losses that the small businesses and enterprises suffered received particular attention and were covered broadly by the national media channels. The policy wordings in question were so varied that it was not possible for any party to provide a clear outcome that will have a widespread effect on such insurance claims. Through the Financial Conduct Authority's involvement, the UK Supreme Court delivered a much-awaited judgment in a test case on the twenty-one selected policy wordings, fourteen of which were held to respond to the Covid-19 related business interruption claims. The significant impact of the test case, which prevented an ongoing uncertainty and avoided protracted litigation for many, is that many thousands of policyholders should now have their claims for business interruption losses paid.
{"title":"The Supreme Court on Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19: Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 1","authors":"Özlem Gürses","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1889145","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1889145","url":null,"abstract":"From the early days of the first national lockdown in England, widespread concerns over many different types of insurance claims had been raised. The business interruption losses that the small businesses and enterprises suffered received particular attention and were covered broadly by the national media channels. The policy wordings in question were so varied that it was not possible for any party to provide a clear outcome that will have a widespread effect on such insurance claims. Through the Financial Conduct Authority's involvement, the UK Supreme Court delivered a much-awaited judgment in a test case on the twenty-one selected policy wordings, fourteen of which were held to respond to the Covid-19 related business interruption claims. The significant impact of the test case, which prevented an ongoing uncertainty and avoided protracted litigation for many, is that many thousands of policyholders should now have their claims for business interruption losses paid.","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"27 1","pages":"71 - 83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84855357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1888446
David O. Dowling
The Covid-19 virus and the resulting pandemic have caused tragic loss of life and suffering. As countries have tried to lower the infection rate they have been forced to shut down large swathes of their economies. The necessary but self-imposed hardship has impacted everyone in society, albeit not equally. Much of the commentary on Covid19 has focused on how the pandemic has accelerated existing underlying trends. This article will argue that a similar process is taking place in relation to attitudes towards the company and its role in society, focusing on the UK. These changes are not necessarily part of a single, consistent set of policy decisions. Instead, they reflect broader, preexisting changes in society and our assumptions about the interaction between profit and purpose. The actions taken by the Government are based (whether consciously or not) on the principle that companies are not purely private assets but instead agents for positive change. Informed by this growing view, the Government has (in some respects) enlisted private assets to deliver its broader societal outcomes. One can place these actions within the pre-existing trend towards a more enlightened shareholder value approach to the company, with a belief that companies should also operate for the benefit of broader stakeholders rather than just shareholders. However, the recent changes have still not fully ushered in enlightened shareholder value. Instead the Government has continued its prior tendency of relying on a system of disclosure-based regulation in the context of corporate governance, which does not always adequately deliver positive social outcomes.
{"title":"The Role of the Company in the Time of Covid-19","authors":"David O. Dowling","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1888446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1888446","url":null,"abstract":"The Covid-19 virus and the resulting pandemic have caused tragic loss of life and suffering. As countries have tried to lower the infection rate they have been forced to shut down large swathes of their economies. The necessary but self-imposed hardship has impacted everyone in society, albeit not equally. Much of the commentary on Covid19 has focused on how the pandemic has accelerated existing underlying trends. This article will argue that a similar process is taking place in relation to attitudes towards the company and its role in society, focusing on the UK. These changes are not necessarily part of a single, consistent set of policy decisions. Instead, they reflect broader, preexisting changes in society and our assumptions about the interaction between profit and purpose. The actions taken by the Government are based (whether consciously or not) on the principle that companies are not purely private assets but instead agents for positive change. Informed by this growing view, the Government has (in some respects) enlisted private assets to deliver its broader societal outcomes. One can place these actions within the pre-existing trend towards a more enlightened shareholder value approach to the company, with a belief that companies should also operate for the benefit of broader stakeholders rather than just shareholders. However, the recent changes have still not fully ushered in enlightened shareholder value. Instead the Government has continued its prior tendency of relying on a system of disclosure-based regulation in the context of corporate governance, which does not always adequately deliver positive social outcomes.","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"79 12 1","pages":"37 - 48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83219451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1886659
M. Schillig
The COVID-19 crisis has had a major impact across all sectors of the economy. For the most part, businesses and households have been affected negatively; although some, notably online retailers and streaming platforms, have significantly increased their profits. Alongside health care and the pharmaceutical industry, banking and finance will be essential for helping the real economy to get through the crisis, and for paving the way to economic recovery and a return to a more normal life. The liquidity generated by the vast stimulus and rescue programmes launched by governments and central banks around the world has to be channelled to businesses and households. To have any chance of financial survival, businesses and households in lockdown need leniency with their existing credit arrangements; new credit should flow freely. When the pressures of the pandemic eventually subside, the ensuing recovery will have to be funded largely through the money supply provided by commercial banks. To accommodate these needs, banking and finance law had to be adjusted, affecting both minute regulatory detail and broader private law principles. Overall, this process is part of a remarkable transformation: the villain of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has become one of the saviours during COVID-19. Caused by the excesses of the banking and finance sector, the GFC triggered regulatory intervention on an unprecedented scale. A key element has been enhancing institutions’ resilience and ensuring that any losses are predominantly borne by the institutions themselves, their investors and management (Part II below). During COVID-19, banks are no longer the problem, but an essential part of the solution: regulatory measures brought in only recently have to be relaxed and loan losses may have to be socialised again (Part III below). However, in the long term this will not be sustainable. In the aftermath of COVID-19, a new equilibrium will have to emerge where nonviable businesses can go insolvent and distressed banks can fail with as little public
{"title":"Banking and Finance after COVID-19","authors":"M. Schillig","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1886659","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1886659","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 crisis has had a major impact across all sectors of the economy. For the most part, businesses and households have been affected negatively; although some, notably online retailers and streaming platforms, have significantly increased their profits. Alongside health care and the pharmaceutical industry, banking and finance will be essential for helping the real economy to get through the crisis, and for paving the way to economic recovery and a return to a more normal life. The liquidity generated by the vast stimulus and rescue programmes launched by governments and central banks around the world has to be channelled to businesses and households. To have any chance of financial survival, businesses and households in lockdown need leniency with their existing credit arrangements; new credit should flow freely. When the pressures of the pandemic eventually subside, the ensuing recovery will have to be funded largely through the money supply provided by commercial banks. To accommodate these needs, banking and finance law had to be adjusted, affecting both minute regulatory detail and broader private law principles. Overall, this process is part of a remarkable transformation: the villain of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has become one of the saviours during COVID-19. Caused by the excesses of the banking and finance sector, the GFC triggered regulatory intervention on an unprecedented scale. A key element has been enhancing institutions’ resilience and ensuring that any losses are predominantly borne by the institutions themselves, their investors and management (Part II below). During COVID-19, banks are no longer the problem, but an essential part of the solution: regulatory measures brought in only recently have to be relaxed and loan losses may have to be socialised again (Part III below). However, in the long term this will not be sustainable. In the aftermath of COVID-19, a new equilibrium will have to emerge where nonviable businesses can go insolvent and distressed banks can fail with as little public","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"65 1","pages":"49 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73586272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09615768.2021.1889809
David Sheldon
The Coronavirus Pandemic resulted in a raft of legislation being hastily introduced by the UK government to implement a national lockdown which resulted in a range of restrictions on movement and association. These legislative changes, while implemented for the protection of public health, have been the responsibility of the police and the wider criminal justice system to enforce. This has presented a distinct challenge for the police in how the broad powers given to them under the Coronavirus legislation is enforced to maintain long-term compliance from the public with the regulations and the need to ensure the legitimacy of the police service's actions is similarly maintained.
{"title":"Policing the Pandemic: Maintaining Compliance and Legitimacy during Covid-19","authors":"David Sheldon","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2021.1889809","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1889809","url":null,"abstract":"The Coronavirus Pandemic resulted in a raft of legislation being hastily introduced by the UK government to implement a national lockdown which resulted in a range of restrictions on movement and association. These legislative changes, while implemented for the protection of public health, have been the responsibility of the police and the wider criminal justice system to enforce. This has presented a distinct challenge for the police in how the broad powers given to them under the Coronavirus legislation is enforced to maintain long-term compliance from the public with the regulations and the need to ensure the legitimacy of the police service's actions is similarly maintained.","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"29 1","pages":"14 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90683032","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：