In the latest edition of our Need to Know employment law newsletter we look at when two jobs can breach working time regulations, review the rejected Employment Rights Bill amendments, and with whistleblowing on the rise, provide a guide to change in whistleblowing law.
- Double shifts, double trouble? When two jobs breach the Working Time Regulations
- Commons rejects key Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill
- Whistleblowing on the rise: A whistle-stop guide
We have also included our usual HR Bullets – which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- The EAT held the ET erred by capping future loss without a reasoned assessment. The Claimant, a coach driver dismissed after failing three alcohol breath tests, was unfairly dismissed due to flaws in the internal appeal process. However, the ET limited future loss to age 65, despite the Claimant’s intention to work until 70 for financial reasons. The ET limited future loss based on an “overall feel” of what was just and equitable, influenced by the length of the award and absence of evidence of future pay increases in the Claimant’s new role. The EAT emphasised Tribunals must consider all relevant evidence, even if speculative, and apply common sense, remitting the case for reconsideration.
Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151 - The EAT held a manager can’t be personally liable for whistleblowing detriment under s.47B(1A) ERA without knowledge of the protected disclosures. The Claimant had raised safety and staffing concerns. Her line manager initiated disciplinary proceedings, and a senior manager, unaware of the disclosures, dismissed her for misconduct. The ET found the disclosures materially influenced the dismissal and held both managers liable for detriment. The EAT overturned this, confirming that personal liability requires knowledge of the disclosures, and remitted the automatic unfair dismissal claim to consider whether the dismissal was tainted by manipulation under the Jhuti principle.
Henderson v GCRM Ltd [2025] EAT 136 - The EAT confirmed Tribunals can assess a claim’s prospects at any stage, not just at the outset. After a key hearing, the Claimant pursued several weak claims despite warnings. The ET deemed this unreasonable and awarded costs to the Respondent. The EAT upheld the decision, confirming that pursuing a claim with no reasonable prospect of success (even if it may have enjoyed such prospects beforehand) can justify a costs award under Rule 76(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, reinforcing the need for parties to reassess their claims throughout proceedings.
Huntley v Siemens Healthcare Ltd [2025] EAT 152 - The EAT set aside an Employment Tribunal’s dismissal of a job applicant’s claims after new emails were discovered. The ET had dismissed all claims and awarded costs, finding the Claimant’s account (including that a job offer had been made) not to be credible. The Claimant appealed following the discovery of emails confirming the job offer. The ET treated reconsideration as confined to costs. The EAT held that this was an error. Given the centrality of adverse credibility findings, the ET should have also reconsidered liability in light of the new evidence. The case was remitted.
Mayanja v City of Bradford and Metropolitan District Council [2025] EAT 160 - The ET found a dismissal to be fair where the Claimant concealed dual employment amounting to 77.5 hours per week, breaching regulation 6(1) of the Working Time Regulations. The Tribunal held the contract was unenforceable for statutory and common law illegality, due to health and safety risks and public policy implications. Claims for unlawful deductions and breach of contract were dismissed. The ET also noted that, even if illegality had not blocked the unfair dismissal claim, the employer’s process was reasonable, and dismissal would still have been within the band of reasonable responses.
Ogumodede v Churchill Contract Services [2025] 9 WLUK 482 - The Court of Appeal held that non-compliance with ACAS Early Conciliation under section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996 deprived the ET of jurisdiction. The Claimant had been dismissed and brought claims for automatic unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment. Whilst the Claimant’s dismissal claim was exempt from EC due to an interim relief application, the detriment claim was not. It was held the ET could permit an amendment to add the detriment claim to the existing proceedings as section 18A applies when starting new claims, not claims introduced by amendment. The appeal was dismissed and, following amendment, the detriment claim could proceed within the original claim.
Reynolds v Abel Estate Agent Ltd and others [2025] EWCA Civ 1357