Skip to main content
SIGN UP

Need to Know: January 2025

Share

In the first edition of our Need to Know Employment Law newsletter for 2025, we look what happens, and who is liable, when an employee objects to a TUPE transfer, whether men face prejudice for taking extended parental leave and what protections they have, and provide a schedule of all the planned Employment legislation coming in 2025.

We also have included our usual HR Bullets – which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.

HR Bullets

  • The EAT finds tribunal made “totally flawed” assessment of injury to feelings in pregnancy discrimination case, by not mentioning the Vento Bands and making no assessment of where the Claimant’s injury fell within those bands; Shakil v Samsons Ltd [2024] EAT 192
  • The EAT has set aside an employment tribunal’s decision that a female firearms officer’s failure to complete a fitness test to the required national standard, which resulted in her dismissal, amounted to indirect sex discrimination under S.19 of the Equality Act 2010; Advocate General for Scotland v Brown and anor [2024] EAT 189
  • The EAT has held that an employment tribunal was entitled to refuse a litigant in person’s application to postpone the hearing of her claim midway through, despite her later adducing medical evidence indicating that she had experienced a panic attack caused by the pressures of the hearing, and would need two weeks to recover; Kaler v Insights ESC Ltd UKEAT/0051/20/BA
  • The EAT has held that an employment tribunal erred in interpreting S.116(3)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as mandating it to consider whether the Claimant had caused or contributed to his dismissal; British Council v Sellers [2025] EAT 1 15
  • The EAT held that an employment tribunal had been entitled to refuse a Claimant’s application to amend her claim to add a whistleblowing complaint and an indirect sex discrimination complaint. The Claimant also had legal representation; Vassallo v Mizuho International plc and another [2024] EAT 170 19
  • The Court of Appeal has held that an employment tribunal erred in refusing to extend the time limit for a race discrimination claim where the employer had not disclosed to an unsuccessful job applicant the age or race of the successful candidate, on data protection grounds; Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EWCA Civ 1568 20
  • The Court of Appeal upheld the EAT’s decision that a tribunal had erred in determining the date on which the Claimant had sufficient knowledge to bring her discrimination claims; HSBC Bank plc v Chevalier-Firescu [2024] EWCA Civ 1550 21
  • The EAT held that a tribunal erred either in failing to address, or in failing to give adequate reasons for rejecting, an allegation of direct race discrimination, which had not been pleaded in the ET1 but was included in the list of issues; Bogdan v The Cabinet Office: Government Digital Services [2024] EAT 177

Share this article

You may be interested in...