Two lower court decisions have confirmed tenants right to claim a COVID-19-related rent reduction in general. However, both decisions must be read carefully and leave many questions unanswered, particularly in cases where shops made or could have made limited use of their premises during the national lockdowns by offering online delivery or click and collect services. In addition, state aid may affect rent reductions. This uncertainty has led to many mutual agreements in the market.
Lockdowns
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been three lockdowns in Austria. During each of these periods, the customer area of shops had to be closed to the public, except for certain essential retail stores (ie grocery stores and pharmacies).(1) Restaurants could offer takeaway and delivery services only (subject to certain restrictions) and hotels were shut subject to certain exceptions (eg, persons who were staying at the hotel at the start of the lockdown could remain and certa
In the recent case of
Helice Leasing SAS v PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk ([2021] EWHC 99 (Comm)), the Commercial Court decided that the claimant, aircraft leasing company Helice, must arbitrate its claim against airline Garuda for more than $5,150,000 in unpaid lease rent under London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) rules instead of proceeding by court action.
The court upheld the parties arbitration agreement pursuant to the lease agreement terms despite conflicting references therein which stated that the lessor could proceed by appropriate court action following an event of default.(1) The court endorsed the one-stop shop principle established by the House of Lords in
Under the Employment Contracts Act, employers and employees may agree on non-compete obligations only in limited circumstances. However, in practice, the criteria are vague and non-compete obligations have been used more commonly than what was originally intended. The reform of the Employment Contracts Act aims to change this situation and ensure that employers carefully consider when to include non-compete obligations in employment contracts.
On 1 March 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in
United States v Arthrex (19–1434). This case addresses whether administrative patent judges (APJs) – who preside over
inter partes reviews at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) – are unconstitutionally appointed principal officers and, if so, whether that constitutional violation can be cured by severing for cause employment protections for APJs.
If the Supreme Court in
Arthrex concludes that APJs are unconstitutionally appointed principal officers, the remedy that the court adopts or recommends could reshape practice and procedure for
inter partes reviews and other USPTO proceedings.
Facts
Arthrex came to the Supreme Court from a 31 October 2019 Federal Circuit decision –
Introduction
With the COVID-19 vaccination process underway, employers are navigating unprecedented issues within their workforce. This article explores, among other things:
employers obligations when implementing mandatory vaccination programmes;
issues concerning employee data that is provided as proof of vaccination or pre-vaccination screening; and
defining reasonable accommodation and potential Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerns.(1)
Employers obligations when implementing mandatory vaccination programmes
Employers that implement mandatory COVID-19 vaccination programmes should pay close attention to their responsibilities under the following as many of the traditional applications of these laws apply to this type of programme:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act;