A search order, made pursuant to section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 and CPR Part 25, is one of the most draconian orders the English civil courts can make. No Respondent really wants a search team to enter their premises but because of Covid -19 the search team is even less welcome than usual.
Richard Fox explains the consequences employers can expect to face if they have intentionally or accidentally misused the job retention scheme
Furlough has undoubtedly been a huge success. According to the British Chamber of Commerce, since March the scheme has been used by two thirds of British businesses supporting approximately 9.4 million jobs. Yet at a cost approaching an eye-watering £30 billion to the taxpayer, it is understandable that the Government has confirmed it is now “using every tool and piece of intelligence to prevent, detect and disrupt fraud” in relation to the scheme.
We recognise that the last few months have been testing for many separated parents who have been co-parenting throughout the pandemic – with home schooling and juggling work and child care commitments between two households. With the uncertainty as to whether schools can safely reopen fully, some separated parents may well find themselves disagreeing on whether their child should attend in such circumstances.
Much has been written about the case of Barder v Calouori  AC 20 (“Barder”) in the initial stages of the COVID-19 lockdown. It was held out as the means by which maybe, just maybe, it might be possible to reopen a case where a substantive financial order has been made on the basis that the COVID-19 pandemic is an event which has invalidated the basis, or fundamental assumptions of the original financial order.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility