header-logo header-logo

The (special) COVID catastrophe

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

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll