Day: March 19, 2020

Coronavirus, business, and employment law

One big issue is on everyone’s mind in the UK and the globe in the last month. It has affected everyone.

Every responsible person is trying to do their bit to make life easier for the public. We pay tribute to all public service key workers, without whom we could not manage at a time like this.

COVID-19 has affected everyone’s working life, and people are wondering what the implications are for their businesses and jobs.

Important questions that arise in the world of employment law:

Can employers just terminate the jobs of their employees because of the economic impact of COVID-19?

Can employers temporarily ‘lay-off’ employees? In what circumstances. And for how long? With or without pay?

Can employers make employees redundant? What payment are employees entitled to, if any?

What are the appropriate grounds for redundancy? What process has to be followed? What are the consequences of not following the process?

What are the other risks and possible claims that an employee or employer may have?

What is the best practical approach that you can take, whether you are an employer or employee?

Is offering or accepting a settlement agreement a viable option? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

And if you are not an employee, but a self-employed contractor, what rights do you have?

The answers to these questions are complex and depend upon several factors. Some advisors purport to give simplistic one-line answers in a bid to win new clients, but experienced professionals know that that is simply not possible, because each situation is different. Factors which come into play include:

  • the express and implied terms of the contract
  • the length of employment
  • the nature of the work and traditions within that industry.

Even the law itself is changing rapidly as the coronavirus crisis spirals. Specialist lawyers need to keep up with the developing law in this area.

If you want the best possible advice possible for your needs, whether you are an employer or employee, you can receive it from Sterling Law’s Consultant Solicitor and specialist in employment law, with 20 years’ expertise in this field, Kuldeep Clair.

Please look up Kuldeep’s impressive profile at https://sterling-law.co.uk/en/kuldeep-clair/

Kuldeep Clair is making himself available for booking for a remote consultation at this very difficult time, at short notice, both inside and outside office hours. As lawyers, we will do whatever possible to help those hit by this crisis.

For expert advice on any employment issue, Kuldeep can be contacted on 07484 614090 or kuldeep@sterlinglawyers.co.uk

Unmarried partner appeal allowed at First-tier Tribunal (IAC)

Unmarried partner appeal allowed at First-tier Tribunal (IAC)

Our client, a national of China, came to the UK as a student in 2001. After her leave expired she remained in the UK. Shortly afterwards, she entered into a relationship with a British national.

In 2018, having been in a relationship for many years, our client applied for leave to remain on the basis of her family and private life, on the grounds that she was the unmarried partner of a British national.

The application was refused by the Home Office and our client lodged an appeal. The Tribunal failed to list our client’s appeal after some time and, concerned as to what to do next, she approached Sterling Law.

A further appeal against the refusal was then lodged by Oksana Demyanchuk providing reasons for it being out-of-time and an appeal hearing was listed by the Tribunal.

Evidence was then complied to demonstrate that our client had developed a family and private life with her partner, his children and grandchildren in the UK. Furthermore, evidence was put forward that would face very significant obstacles to integration into China for a number of reasons.

It was also put forward that our client’s family life would be disproportionately affected by any removal because she could not return to China with her partner as a couple for many reasons, for example, one reason put forward was the fact that her partner was a business owner in the UK and the disruption caused to his business by him leave the UK would be devastating.

It was submitted on behalf of our client, given all the evidence provided, it would constitute a breach of our client’s Article 8 ECHR rights to remove her to the UK and therefore, the Home Office decision to refuse her application was unlawful.

The Judge of the First-tier Tribunal agreed, finding that:

When considering the issue of proportionality, I note that there is a strong public interest in the maintenance of effective immigration controls, a statement of principle given statutory effect in every question of immigration control arising under the Immigration Acts. However, given the insurmountable obstacles [her partner] would face combined with the fact that the appellant has not been to China in nearly 20 years, has no relatives to offer the couple support should they return, the lack of ties to China and all the other evidence in the round, I find that the respondent’s decision does amount to a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s family life and private life and is, therefore, unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed on human rights grounds and under the Immigration Rules and after many years, our client’s status in the UK is now secure and the couple can continue their life together in the UK.

 

Oksana Demyanchuk

Email: oksana@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535

 

Michael Carter

Email: michael@sterling-law.co.uk

Tel. 020 7822 8535