In this new edition of our Need to Know employment law newsletter we explain the joint Presidential Guidance on interim relief applications issued by the Employment Tribunals in England, Wales and Scotland, warn about a fundamental expansion of compliance obligations regarding ‘Right to Work’, ask what the delays at the Employment Tribunal mean for HR, and take a look at the BBC’s case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal on Disability Discrimination.
- New Joint Presidential Guidance on Interim Relief Applications from the Employment Tribunals in England, Wales & Scotland
- Right to Work Reform 2026: Employers Must Prepare for a Fundamental Expansion of Compliance Obligations
- Mind The Gap: What Employment Tribunal Delays Mean for HR
- The BBC at the Employment Appeal Tribunal – Disability Discrimination in the Spotlight
Also included are our usual HR Bullets, which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- The EAT confirmed that a single act of indirect disability discrimination can give rise to uncapped loss of earnings where there is a direct causal link between the discriminatory act and the employee’s subsequent resignation, and that a concurrent constructive unfair dismissal finding does not limit compensation to the statutory cap. Employers should be alert to the risk that apparently isolated acts of indirect discrimination may carry significant long-term compensation exposure if they ultimately cause an employee’s departure;
Griffiths v Essex County Council [2026] EAT 86 - The EAT held that an employment tribunal erred by treating duress as irrelevant when assessing whether an employee’s conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach, confirming that all relevant circumstances, including pressure or coercion, must be considered when applying the objective test of trust and confidence. The case is a reminder that context and motive may be relevant in wrongful dismissal claims, even where the conduct itself is serious.
XX v YY [2026] EAT 89 - The High Court found that a six-month post-termination non-compete covenant was void as an unlawful restraint of trade, with both the width of the restriction and an ineffective contractual carve-out contributing to its unenforceability. Employers should ensure restrictive covenants are drafted no more widely than is reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests, and that any carve-outs are legally effective;
Huws Gray Ltd v Gentleman [2026] EWHC 1309 (Comm) - The EAT confirmed that assisting a disabled individual can constitute a protected act under the Equality Act 2010, but held that the claimant’s victimisation claim failed because the detriment he suffered was caused by a subsequent complaint about his conduct rather than the protected act itself. The decision is a reminder that a clear causal connection between the protected act and the detriment is essential to a victimisation claim;
Leighton v Renfrewshire Council [2026] EAT 95 - The EAT held that employers can satisfy the obligation to provide itemised payslips by making them available electronically through an app or web browser, provided workers have effective access to the information in practice. Employers using digital-only systems should audit whether any practical or technical barriers prevent employees from accessing their payslips;
Leedham v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2026] EAT 87 - The EAT upheld a tribunal’s refusal to extend time for a response submitted ten months late, confirming that delay, prejudice and the merits of the proposed defence form part of a single evaluative exercise in which a false or unsatisfactory explanation may be decisive. Employers must ensure that tribunal correspondence is identified and escalated promptly as procedural defaults are very difficult to remedy retrospectively;
Costco Wholesale UK Ltd v Nash [2026] EAT 85 - The EAT confirmed that where compensation is recalculated following a successful appeal, a tribunal may reconsider the percentage Acas code uplift to be applied, even where the uplift itself was not challenged on appeal, because the size of the overall award is a relevant consideration in determining what is just and equitable. Employers assessing the value of appeals or settlement should factor in the possibility that a remitted hearing may result in a higher proportionate uplift than was originally awarded;
Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh [2026] EAT 96 - The Court of Appeal confirmed that a business will not ordinarily be vicariously liable for torts committed by employees of a genuine independent contractor where the contractual arrangements and practical reality demonstrate that the contractor retains control and responsibility for its workforce. The decision provides reassurance that properly structured outsourcing arrangements can limit vicarious liability exposure, provided the contractor’s operational independence is genuine rather than merely contractual;
Burger v Risk Solutions BG Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 804