With the UK’s coronavirus vaccination programme well under way - at the time of writing over 20 million people have received at least their first dose – attention is increasingly turning to the possibility of “vaccine passports” to allow foreign travel, to permit attendance at sports or music events, or even to allow entry to pubs, restaurants or gyms. However, concerns have been expressed around discrimination and around a refusal to be vaccinated (perhaps for good reason), preventing an individual from taking part in society.
It is estimated that the NHS is vulnerable to £1.21 billion worth of fraud every single year. This is a shocking sum. Fraud takes taxpayers' money away from patient care and puts it into the hands of criminals, and it is understandable that there is currently so much focus on this area.
Home ownership is likely to be one of the biggest investments you will make in your lifetime. It follows that it may also be one of the most valuable assets in your estate at death. Therefore, it is important how you take title to the property.
On 15 January 2021, the Supreme Court handed down judgement in the Covid-19 Business Interruption test cases of The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch and Others. These cases provided an opportunity for the courts to clarify much about the way in which business interruption loss cover should operate in the context of the current Covid-19 pandemic. Naturally, not every single issue could be or indeed was, resolved. However, it is fair to say that the Supreme Court has clarified many of the significant issues currently affecting businesses and those involved in the insurance sector.
As is well known, the state of the law of prescription is in flux and has led to a surge in ‘protective’ proceedings. A recent case highlights the potential risk of adopting such a course, when commenced at the expense of agreed dispute resolution mechanisms.
