In the latest edition of our Need to Know employment law newsletter we look at the day one rights for paternity and unpaid parental leave coming into force on 6 April, whether settlement agreements can prevent employees from bringing future (whistleblowing) claims, and how to mitigate and deal with risks from self-diagnosed neurodiversity in the workplace.
- Day one rights to paternity and unpaid parental leave: What changes are occurring on 6 April 2026
- No Second Chances: Barring Future Claims in Settlement Agreements
- Self Diagnosed Neurodiversity at Work: What Employers Need to Know and Do
We have also included our usual HR Bullets, which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- After his Tribunal claims failed, Mr Ajao was found in contempt for lying under oath and fabricating evidence. The Court of Appeal upheld almost all findings and resentenced him to eight months’ immediate custody, refusing suspension due to the seriousness, sustained deceit, attempt to obtain significant damages, and harm to a colleague.
Ajao v Commerzbank AG [2026] EWCA Civ 147 - A senior HR professional was seconded to a UK entity but remained employed by the overseas parent company. The Tribunal wrongly found her employment had transferred to the UK company and upheld some whistleblowing detriment and automatic unfair dismissal claims. The EAT held her employment never transferred to Bank of Africa UK; she remained employed by the overseas parent company. Therefore, the automatic unfair dismissal claim against the UK entity failed. The Tribunal also misapplied the detriment tests (including who the employer was and how motives were attributed), so those claims were sent back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
Bank of Africa UK Plc & Others v Hassani [2026] EAT 27 - A senior customer adviser with 16 years’ service, was dismissed for gross misconduct after four customer incidents that her employer said were fraud. The Tribunal found there were no reasonable grounds for fraud but still upheld the dismissal for a policy breach. The EAT said fairness must be assessed against the real reasons the decision‑maker relied on. Because fraud was a key element not held, the dismissal was unfair; the employer’s cross appeal was refused and remedy remitted to the Tribunal.
Chand v EE Ltd [2026] EAT 17 - After a negative reference led to the Claimant’s job offer being withdrawn, the parties signed a COT3 that retracted the reference and settled “all and any” claims, including future ones. When a later job application from the Claimant failed, she brought a new whistleblowing detriment claim. The EAT agreed that the COT3 blocked that claim because it was about the same alleged disclosures and covered future detriment linked to them.
Darlington v Islington LBC [2026] EAT 11 - A policy requiring a Medical Director to act as case manager for consultant investigations was found to be part of the Claimant’s contract. The employer had appointed a senior manager to act instead, but the Court of Appeal held the role had to be performed personally by the Medical Director, save for narrow exceptions (for example, illness or conflict), so the delegation to another employee breached the Claimant’s contract. The appeal was dismissed and a declaration requiring the Medical Director to act was upheld.
Dr MN v NHS Foundation Trust L [2026] EWCA Civ 71 - A HGV driver was dismissed for medical incapability after more than two years off sick. They appealed but the appeal process broke down and no appeal hearing took place. Although the Tribunal found the dismissal fair, the EAT held the dismissal was unfair because of the serious appeal defects and noted that poor handling of an appeal can, by itself, render a dismissal unfair.
Milrine v DHL Services Ltd [2026] EAT 31 - A charity withdrew a job offer to an applicant after press reports of his views on homosexuality and same‑sex marriage. The Tribunal partly upheld direct discrimination but dismissed other elements. The EAT said Tribunals must identify for each act whether the employer acted because of protected beliefs or their (potentially inappropriate) manifestation and then assess justification. That analysis was not done, so the case was remitted to the Tribunal.
Ngole v Touchstone Leeds [2026] EAT 29 - The High Court rejected a challenge to the EHRC’s interim update on single‑sex toilets and changing rooms, finding it accurately stated the law and was lawful to publish under the Equality Act 2010 and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations. It found the EHRC had not breached its duties, and that the law did not violate privacy rights; any interference could be justified. Trans inclusive facilities can be provided alongside single sex ones. The Claimant lacked standing, but the case was not academic because employers and services had relied on the update even though it was later removed.
R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Equality and Human Rights Commission [2026] EWHC 279 (Admin) - In a large equal pay case, the EAT explained how judges must handle “reconsideration” requests. At the first sift, a judge must either stop the reconsideration (if it clearly won’t change the result) or let it go ahead, and appeals against letting it proceed are rarely justified. The EAT found errors: the judge dismissed issues that needed more review (like physical effort), commented too much on witness evidence about handling cages, and didn’t record obvious risk-related facts. The appeals were allowed and sent back to the Tribunal for proper reconsideration.
Tesco Stores Ltd v Element & Ors (Equal Pay, Practice and Procedure) [2026] EAT 33 - After bringing over 50 unsuccessful employment claims and frequently failing to attend hearings, an individual was made subject to a restriction of proceedings order. She now needs the EAT’s permission before starting any new ET/EAT claims. The EAT rejected bias allegations and held it had no jurisdiction to stop her acting as a representative or McKenzie friend.
The Attorney General v Ms Sandra Messi: [2026] EAT 34 - A litigant sent hundreds of abusive messages to the other side’s solicitors. The Court of Appeal confirmed courts can order someone to stop such messages to protect the legal process, even without a separate claim or proven contempt. No injunction was granted here because the original order was too broad and the conduct had ceased by the time of appeal.
Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd v Okunola [2026] EWCA Civ 138