- On 30 April 2026, the Transparency and Open Justice Board published an update on its current work objectives and priorities for 2026-2027.
- The Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) has published a consultation on possible amendments to the costs rules in the First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and employment tribunals, which includes proposals to introduce express powers for employment tribunals to order payments on account of costs and to make pro bono costs orders.
- In Capeling v TFX Group Ltd [2026] EAT 57, the EAT upheld a tribunal finding that an employee's statement about missing contracts with contractors, coupled with a general assertion of health and safety risk, did not constitute a qualifying disclosure under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal had been entitled to […]
- In Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 654 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal determined that referees' individual match contracts were not employment contracts. While the first and second Ready Mixed Concrete (RMC) tests of mutuality and control were met, the decision was not a borderline case because the application of the third RMC […]
- PIP benefits deductible from loss of earnings in calculating discrimination compensatory award (EAT)In Foat v Department of Work and Pensions [2026] EAT 61, the EAT dismissed the claimant's appeal against the deduction of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) from his disability discrimination compensation, holding that an employment tribunal had not erred in setting off this state benefit from the compensatory award.
- The Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) has launched a new inquiry and call for evidence on access to flexible working for disabled people.
- Thomson Reuters will have its first of two mental health days this year on Friday 8 May 2026. Practical Law editorial teams will not be working on that day.
- In Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd [2026] EAT 58 the EAT held that a tribunal had misapplied section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by ruling that evidence concerning a protected conversation was not admissible for the purposes of all the claimant's claims, including unlawful deduction from wages and less favourable treatment as a […]