In the latest edition of our Need to Know employment law newsletter we cover a recent ruling further clarifying employment status and mutuality of obligation, time limits to bringing discrimination claims, Employment Rights amendments struck down by the House of Commons and changes to UK immigration law to expect going into 2026.
- ‘Are we exclusive? You’re giving me mixed signals!’ – EAT clarifies employment status in PELC v Maclean
- One-Off Act with Continuing Consequences or a Continuing Act of Discrimination? The EAT’s Clarification on Time Limits
- House of Commons rejects Lords amendments of Employment Rights Bill
- Changes to UK immigration going into 2026
We have also included our usual HR Bullets – which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- The EAT upheld a decision by the ET that a discrimination claim brought almost four years after the event was out of time. The EAT confirmed that the ET had been correct to dismiss the claim. Claims for discrimination should be brought within three months of the act occurring. It was not just and equitable to extend time as there would be significant prejudice to the employer due to memories fading over time. The fact that refusal to extend time meant the Claimant did not have a claim was not a reason to grant an extension.
Ahmed v Capital Arches [2025] EAT 133. - The EAT granted permission for a non-party to observe an EAT hearing but refused to provide them with copies of the pleadings, notice of appeal, and skeleton arguments. The ET had asked the non-party legitimate questions as to why she wanted access to the documents. She failed to provide full explanations or disclose whether she had deleted or posted any material from previous hearings online so her request was not granted.
Cohen v Mahmood [2025] EAT 134 - The EAT held that the ET had erred in finding that the Claimant, a nurse who was a contractor working through a personal service company for urgent treatment centres, was a worker and employee of the (end user) Respondent. There was no obligation on the Respondent to offer monthly shifts and no obligation on the Claimant to accept them. In addition, there was a bidding system in place for shifts and the Claimant was not guaranteed to get all the shifts she bid for.
Partnership of East London Co-Operatives Ltd v Maclean [2025] EAT 142 - The Court of Appeal held that the Saudi Arabian Embassy could not claim state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 in relation to claims brought against it by an employee who was a junior member of staff working on cultural projects and requests from Saudi students. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the EAT and held that her duties were not “sufficiently close” to the exercise of Sovereign Authority as the employee did not have a decision-making role: her work was ancillary and supportive.
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Alhayali [2025] EWCA Civ 1162 - The Claimant, a solicitor, claimed unpaid commission from his employer. His employment contract stated he would earn 20% commission on fees billed to clients once had had invoiced in excess of three times his salary. The EAT held that the ET had erred in its decision for commission to be paid on all invoices as the employment contract was clear that the commission was payable on amounts “in respect of the work carried out by the Employee” as a solicitor. Once the fees for work done by others was removed, the Claimant had not met the required threshold.
Saul & Co v Rashbrook [2025] EAT 129