In this new edition of our Need to Know employment law newsletter we consider when employee perks might become contractual rights, get a reminder from the EAT on when employee concerns become whistleblowing, and look at the government consultation on zero-hour and low-hour worker protection regulations.
- Removing employee benefits: When does a perk become a contractual right?
- Govt consults on regulations to protect zero-hours and low-hours workers under the ERA 2025
- When does a concern become a disclosure of information? A reminder from the EAT on whistleblowing
Also included are our usual HR Bullets, which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned findings of direct discrimination based on belief and race. The employee had been subject to disciplinary proceedings and further training after two incidents, one following a heated argument with a black colleague and the other following a conversation in which he rejected the concept of systematic racism and allegedly commented that black people should not “hide behind their race”. It held the tribunal wrongly conflated distinct beliefs—equal treatment and rejection of systemic racism—and failed to establish a sufficient nexus. It also overlooked non-discriminatory explanations and lacked evidential basis for race discrimination findings. The EAT substituted a decision dismissing all claims.
London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Garrett [2026] EAT 77
- The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) granted an extension of time for an appeal where the Claimant’s solicitors failed to upload the tribunal’s judgment and reasons with the notice of appeal due to a file‑labelling error. Although this omission was not a “minor error” under rule 37(5), since the documents were essential to identify an arguable error of law, the EAT exercised its discretion under rule 37(1) to extend time. It emphasised that extensions are exceptional, but relevant factors—such as prompt correction, candid explanation, limited delay, and lack of prejudice—made it just to allow the appeal to proceed
Rogers v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] EAT 78
- The tribunal held football referees were not employees for tax purposes, applying the Ready Mixed Concrete Despite some mutuality and control, referees retained key independence: they could refuse matches, had limited economic dependence, and lacked continuous obligations. Control was regulatory rather than managerial. A holistic assessment showed insufficient integration into the organisation to establish employment status.
Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 654 (TC)
- The High Court approved the making of an imaging order made against a departing employee to preserve documents containing an employer’s confidential information. The employee resigned to join a competitor, but before resigning she was suspected of taking confidential data and documents. The court held that the order (which had been made without prior notice to the employee) was justified due to the sensitivity of the data, evidence of copying, the employee’s move to a competitor and her failure to refer to the documents when initially asked following her resignation. However, the court refused immediate access to the material, requiring standard disclosure procedures instead. The court also narrowed overly broad aspects of the order, emphasising proportionality and balancing evidence preservation with individual rights.
Vertical Aerospace Group Ltd v Ngoma [2026] EWHC 1096 (KB)
- The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that a tribunal erred in rejecting a gender reassignment claim due to a name mismatch between the ET1 and Acas certificate. The Claimant had changed his name by deed poll to reflect his gender identity but did not explain this in the ET1. The tribunal failed to consider whether this was a correctable naming error or whether rejecting the claim served justice. The EAT emphasised the tribunal’s wide discretion to allow procedural flexibility.
Bickley v John Lewis plc [2026] EAT 59
- The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that an employer was liable for unlawful deductions from wages when an employee established entitlement to a bonus before the employer attempted to apply a cap to the amount that could be paid. The employer had introduced a “kitty bonus” of 1% of invoices submitted in the first 12 months, subject to Sector Lead approval. When an employee requested the approval, the Sector Lead instead retrospectively added another level of approval, and a cap on the bonus, The EAT found the employer could not later “move the goal posts” and impose additional requirements or caps. The EAT found that the tribunal erred by focusing on later developments rather than the point of approval. The failure to pay the full bonus amounted to an unlawful deduction from wages.
Chandrashekarappa v Wipro Ltd [2026] EAT 73