Towards the end of 2019, an audacious and non-discerning virus made its debut in Wuhan, China, bringing with it a disease christened COVID-19, which quickly transcended from being an epidemic, into a global pandemic. Its spread has forced governments worldwide to impose stringent but imperative measures which curtailed civil liberties, with unprecedented global socio-economic consequences, causing the entire world into a recession even greater than that caused by the financial crises of 2008.

The internet is now replete with articles and legal advice, solicited and unsolicited, about the rights of corporate and non-corporate entities. The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged corporate directors and top management in ways hitherto unprecedented, causing them to turn attention to optimisation of cost, which in turn may lead to staff rationalisation. Thus, contractual due process may be over-looked. Supply chains have been disrupted and, parties unable to fulfil their obligations under tenancies and leases, issues relating to the use of personal data will rise to the fore. Many companies face bankruptcy, insolvency; consumer spending is now significantly curtailed, thereby impacting on the ability of the retailers to pay their suppliers and so on down the value chain. Also amplified are uncertainties around the effect of existing force majeure clauses in the face of COVID-19. In all these, lawyers would be at the frontline of advising clients about their rights and obligations, with instructions given to enforce rights through litigation. New claims and novel arguments would be brought before the courts for adjudication, with the ever-bludgeoning dockets of judges growing even more exponentially, even as the resources available to deal with them remain inadequate.

No one would be affected by any dispute that emerges as a result of any action or inaction taken in response to COVID-19 who would not have also suffered personal and economic losses.

Should those who have to enforce their rights as a result of COVID-19 related circumstance be subjected to the analogue vagaries of our anachronistic and slow-wheeled civil justice system?