In the latest edition of our Need to Know employment law newsletter we highlight what you need to know about the new Employment Rights Bill Roadmap, the upcoming ban on NDAs regarding harassment and discrimination, and the risks of overlooking the search for suitable alternative employment in a redundancy process.
- Redundancy Process: Don’t Overlook Suitable Alternative Employment
- NDAs gagging workers from discussing alleged harassment and discrimination to be banned
- The Employment Rights Bill Roadmap – What you need to know
We also have included our usual HR Bullets – which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- The High Court confirmed that oral disclosure of personal data through deceptive means can amount to unlawful processing. JD Wetherspoons breached its privacy policies by giving the Claimant’s mother’s phone number, stored in a locked cabinet marked “Strictly Private and Confidential”, to the Claimant’s abusive former partner, leading to further harassment. The High Court upheld findings of misuse of private information and breach of confidence, confirming the number was private to the Claimant and should not have been disclosed; Raine v JD Wetherspoon plc [2025] EWHC 1593 (KB)
- The EAT rejected the Claimant’s claim of being employed by the local council via a third party. The Claimant’s brother, who received council funding for his care, used it to pay the Claimant’s salary. The EAT found no employment contract existed with the council: payslips listed the brother as employer, staffing was handled by his family, and the council had no involvement in care training or supervision. The EAT also found a valid employment relationship may exist between the Claimant and his brother, so no implied one with the council was necessary; Scully v Northamptonshire County Council [2025] EAT 83
- The EAT dismissed the Claimant’s appeal, confirming their unfair dismissal claim was submitted late. Under s207B(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it was confirmed that only the days within the ACAS early conciliation (EC) period that fall after the effective termination date pause the time limit. Time spent in EC before termination date does not extend the deadline and must be excluded when calculating the limitation period since you “cannot stop a clock which has not yet been started” ; Raison v DF Capital Bank Ltd [2025] EAT 86
- The EAT upheld the ET’s international jurisdiction to hear discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 against three Sweden–based Respondents. The Respondents argued the ET lacked jurisdiction, but the EAT clarified that under s15C Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, establishing international jurisdiction was not necessary and that territorial jurisdiction sufficed, as confirmed in Cable News International Inc v Bhatti. Proceedings were properly served as per ET Rules, and s15C was designed to protect weaker parties, not limit claims. Although the Claimant was not technically an “employee,” the claim was tied to a employment contract and fell within s15C, which aims to uphold claimants’ employment rights; Prahl v Lapinski [2025] EAT 77
- The EAT upheld the ET’s finding that an NHS Trust did not breach its duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant, a non-emergency ambulance driver with anxiety worsened by Covid-19, requested an FFP3 mask, but the Trust declined due to practical issues. The ET found the mask would not have enabled a return to work, as the core issue was the Claimant’s psychological fear. The EAT agreed, confirming there is no duty to make adjustments which are unlikely to reduce the disadvantage, emphasising that an adjustment’s effectiveness is key to its reasonableness; Hindmarch v North East Ambulance NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EAT 87
- The EAT found the ET erred by striking out the Claimant’s case without first issuing an Unless Order. The Claimant, a disabled litigant in person, had missed several ET deadlines, but the ET failed to consider if a fair trial was still possible, which was a key factor. The EAT stressed that sanctions should promote compliance, not punish, especially so early on in proceedings, and that fairness toward unrepresented or vulnerable claimants must guide ET decisions; Forrest v Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL UK Branch [2025] EAT 81
- The EAT upheld the decision that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed for redundancy, as the Respondent failed to take reasonable steps to offer suitable alternative roles despite several vacancies. It confirmed the ET had applied the correct legal test under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and had not substituted its own judgment. The EAT agreed the Claimant would likely have secured another role if redeployment had been properly explored, so no Polkey reduction applied. The case underscores the duty on employers – particularly larger ones – to actively seek alternative roles during redundancy; Hendy Group Ltd v Kennedy [2024] EAT 106
- The EAT granted the Claimant anonymity after new medical evidence showed that disclosure would harm their mental health. Previously denied due to weak evidence, the Claimant, who was a worker for the Council, resubmitted with detailed reports showing worsened depression and anxiety. The EAT found their Article 8 right to privacy outweighed open justice and subsequently approved the order; JK v Ealing Council [2025] EAT 78
- The EAT overturned the ET’s ruling that the Claimant with Autism and ADHD was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010. It found the ET misapplied legal principles, wrongly downplayed clinical diagnoses, and overlooked that a single substantial adverse effect on one activity can meet the disability threshold. The case was sent to a new ET to reconsider whether the Claimant met the legal definition; Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82
- The Court of Appeal upheld an ET’s decision that the Claimant, a pilot who was engaged via an intermediary company, to work exclusively for Ryanair under a five-year fixed-term contract, was employed by the intermediary for the purposes of the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 and was also an agency worker for Ryanair under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. The Court of Appeal stated the ET was right to conclude that – despite there being no express provision between Ryanair and the Claimant stating the arrangement was temporary – this was clearly laid out in the arrangement between the Claimant and the intermediary. As such, the Claimant was determined to be employed by the intermediary and a temporary agency worker for Ryanair Lutz v Ryanair DAC [2025] EWCA Civ 849