In this new edition of our Need to Know employment law newsletter we take a look at the legal risks of working for two employers, the Government’s consultation on restricting the use of NDAs in workplace harassment cases, updates to the Workers and Temporary Workers sponsor guidance and caution the reliance on ‘protected conversations’.
- Working for Two Employers: The Legal Risks of Moonlighting
- Govt consults on restricting the use of NDAs in workplace harassment cases
- UKVI updates sponsor licence guidance – Key changes from 20 May 2026
- Beware the “Protected Conversation”
We have also included our usual HR Bullets, which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- The High Court has held that legal advice privilege can extend to internal communications between members of a defined “client group”, even where no lawyer is copied in, provided the dominant purpose of the communication is to seek or facilitate legal advice. Nonetheless, employers should take great care when structuring and engaging in internal communications, if they wish to preserve privilege;
Aabar Holdings SARL v Glencore plc [2026] EWHC 877 (Comm) - The EAT has clarified the interpretation of the words “proposing to dismiss” under s.188 TULRCA, such that collective consultation obligations can be triggered earlier than formal insolvency events. Where an employer has a clear (albeit provisional) intention to close, this will engage consultation duties even if a potential buyer exists, with failure exposing employers to protective awards of up to 90 days’ pay;
Ellard v Alliance Transport Technologies [2025] EAT 169 - The Court of Session has held that permanent health insurance (PHI) benefits payable post‑dismissal may qualify as “wages” for the purposes of an unlawful deductions claim. Employers should take great care when considering terminating employment and where PHI is in play, as obligations may survive termination or render dismissal ineffective if exercised in breach of implied terms;
McMahon v AXA ICAS Ltd [2026] CSIH 19 - The EAT found that junior counsel engaged for a statutory inquiry was neither a “worker” nor a public office holder under the Equality Act 2010. The decision highlights that genuinely independent, self‑employed arrangements will fall outside employment protection, even in quasi‑public roles;
Halley v Smith [2026] EAT 56 - In a disability discrimination case, the EAT emphasised the need for tribunals to properly identify the relevant provision, criterion or practice (PCP) and assess any resulting disadvantage. It also confirmed that organisations acting as “qualifications bodies” must consider reasonable adjustments in how competence standards are applied, even where functions are outsourced;
Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd [2026] EAT 54 - The High Court has provided guidance on remedies for proprietary estoppel in employment‑related share option disputes, confirming that an employee may be able to rely on a proprietary estoppel argument to enforce a ‘promise’ made to them, and where they can establish clear assurance, reasonable reliance, and substantial detriment. As to compensation, this should satisfy, but not exceed, the employee’s expectation. The Court endorsed using actual transaction pricing rather than hypothetical market values and confirmed that replacement awards may be required where fairness demands;
Dixon v Globaldata plc [2026] EWHC 850 (Ch) - Clarifying how Employment Tribunals handle national security and intercepted communications, the EAT has rejected the idea of an automatic, blanket approach to closed material procedures in employment cases involving intercepted communications. The EAT has instead ruled that Tribunals retain discretion and should adopt proportionate measures (e.g. private hearings or anonymity orders) only where specific interception‑related material is in issue;
National Crime Agency v DP [2026] EAT 52