In the latest edition of our Need to Know employment law newsletter we look at whether third party liabilities transfer under TUPE, the government’s response to concerns over third-party harassment provisions in the Employment Rights Bill, and why context is key for understanding victimisation and protected acts in the workplace.
- Third-Party Liabilities Will Not Transfer Under TUPE
- Govt Responds to Concerns Over Third-Party Harassment Provisions in the Employment Rights Bill
- Protected acts and victimisation in the workplace: Context is key
We also have included our usual HR Bullets – which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- The Court of Appeal upheld an ET decision that a claim under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 Pt II reg.5(1) could only succeed if part-time worker status was the sole cause of the less favourable treatment complained of; Augustine v Data Cars Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 658
- The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision that a British journalist employed by a US-based media company whose work assignments had mainly been in Asia but who sought to work from London while recovering from an injury had sufficient connection to the UK to bring employment claims here. The Tribunal had correctly applied the “close connection” test laid down in Lawson v Serco Ltd; Cable News International Inc v Bhatti [2025] EAT 63
- The EAT upheld an ET’s interpretation of a written consultancy agreement, ruling that the solicitor was entitled to 40% of the fees billed, paid and received in respect of the work he personally did for a particular client, rather than 40% of all fees billed in respect of that client, including work done by other consultants. The written contract had effective “entire agreement” and “no oral variation” clauses, preventing a separate oral agreement governing the work for a particular client; Dobbie v Paula Felton ta Felton’s Solicitors [2025] EAT 71
- The Court of Appeal held that an LTIP depriving a former employee of an award amounted to a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) that constituted age discrimination. However, the PCP pursued a legitimate aim of staff retention and was a proportionate means of achieving that aim. In any event, the claim would have failed because the PCP had been implemented by a group company which had not been acting as agent for the claimant’s employer; Fasano v Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc [2025] EWCA Civ 592
- The EAT held that an ET had erred when it held that two HR consultants, one appointed to undertake an investigation into a grievance, and the other to conduct the disciplinary hearing, were acting as an employer’s agents when undertaking those functions. The EAT held that although they could in principle be agents, on the particular facts, neither HR consultant could be held liable as agents of the employer, because they were not alleged to have decided upon the dismissal or subjected the Claimant to detrimental treatment; Handa v Station Hotel (Newcastle) Ltd and others [2025] EAT 62