header-logo header-logo

20 May 2020 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7887 / Categories: Features , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-detail

The (special) COVID catastrophe

21104
We’re living in extraordinary times…but are these special circumstances, asks Charles Pigott.
  • The courts have traditionally taken a restrictive approach to the special circumstances defence in the context of collective redundancies.
  • Are they likely to be more generous in the context of the coronavirus pandemic?

In one of the strange ironies of employment law, the leading authority on the special circumstances defence goes back to a routine bakery business insolvency in the 1970s: Clarks of Hove v Bakers Union [1978] IRLR 366, [1979] 1 All ER 152.

The defence can be deployed to relieve an employer from some of the collective information and consultation requirements which are triggered by a proposal to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within 90 days.

Clarks looked at the wording which is now found in s 188(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992: ‘If in any case there are special circumstances which render it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with a requirement

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll