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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll