In the latest edition of our Need to Know employment law newsletter we cover a part-time worker dispute that will head to the Supreme Court, the implications of a ruling on gender and fairness in competitive sport as well as the opportunities for the UK to attract more global talent in the wake of Trump’s new H1-B visa costs.
- Part-time worker dispute to reach Supreme Court
- Navigating Gender and Fairness in Competitive Sport
- Trump’s $100k H-1B Administrative Fee: A Golden Opportunity for the UK to Attract Global Talent?
We have also included our usual HR Bullets – which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- The High Court held that the Claimant was entitled to relief after relying on the CEO’s assurance – incorporated into a settlement agreement – that he could retain and exercise a share option post-employment. Although the share plan rules’ discretion was not formally exercised, the Claimant had extended his employment and accepted restrictive covenants in reliance, making it unconscionable for the Defendant to withdraw its promise (Dixon v Global Data PLC [2025] EWHC 2156 (Ch).
- The EAT held that the ET had failed to consider ordinary unfair dismissal. The Claimant had made whistleblowing disclosures about a suspected fraudulent loss claim, which was investigated but determined to be unfounded. He persisted and refused to engage with a performance plan (viewing it as retaliation) and was dismissed for a breakdown in trust and confidence. The EAT found the dismissal was not automatically unfair for whistleblowing, as it was based on his conduct rather than the disclosures but remitted the case to consider whether there had been an ordinary unfair dismissal (Mr O Argence-Lafon v Ark Syndicate Management Ltd [2025] EAT 124).
- The Claimant was found to have been sexually harassed by a colleague after missing arranged transport and accepting a lift. The ET accepted harassment occurred but held the colleague was not acting in the course of employment, as the Respondent had not arranged the lift. The EAT disagreed and found the ET had failed consider whether the incident was an ‘extension of employment’ that could render the Respondent liable. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the ET for reconsideration. (AB v Grafters Group Ltd [2025] EAT 126).
- The High Court found twenty driving instructors lawfully terminated their franchise agreements after the Defendant’s abusive conduct breached implied terms of good faith and fair dealing. Though good faith is not implied into all franchise agreements, it was here as the arrangements closely resembled employment contracts. (Ellis v John Benson Ltd [2025] EWHC 2096).
- The EAT upheld the ET’s refusal to let the Claimant amend their claim to add disability discrimination based on mental ill health. Although the Claimant did not realise mental ill health could amount to a disability, the amendment would have introduced new claims and caused disproportionate hardship to the Respondent. The EAT agreed and dismissed he amendments. (CX v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EAT 114).
- The High Court held that a subscription-based online directory for performers was not an employment agency under law. The platform functioned as a marketing tool rather than securing work, did not negotiate or act as an intermediary, and was comparable to websites like LinkedIn (Equity and others v Talent Systems Europe Ltd [2025] EWHC 2254 (KB).
- The EAT upheld the ET’s finding that the Claimant was not disabled at the time of dismissal. The ET held the impairments were a temporary reaction, not long‑lasting or likely to recur. On appeal, the EAT rejected arguments that the ET failed to define the discrimination allegations or consider the dismissal appeal period, confirming it was entitled to focus on the relevant timeframe and that dismissal was for relationship breakdown, not disability-related capability. (JP v Spelthorne Borough Council [2025] EAT 127).
- The Claimant alleged whistleblowing detriment based on statements made after settling an earlier case. The ET found one statement was a detriment but not caused by whistleblowing, and others were true or not detrimental. The EAT clarified that post-employment detriment can be determinants if linked to prior employment, but held the ET’s errors were immaterial and upheld its finding that the Respondent’s actions were not materially influenced by the Claimants disclosures. (Dr Christopher Day v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust [2025] EAT 123).
- The EAT upheld the ET’s decision to strike out the Claimant’s second claim as an abuse of process. Having already brought a victimisation claim, the Claimant later sought to pursue a separate claim over unsuccessful job applications, despite knowing of it before the first hearing took place. The ET held they should have applied to amend the original claim, and the EAT viewed this is as a barrier to efficient case management. (Szucs v GreenSquareAccord Ltd [2025] EAT 110).