The duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 is imposed on the employer. Does that mean an individual manager involved in a failure to make an adjustment cannot be personally liable?
Can an employer pay two groups differently because it needs to pay more to recruit people into one of the jobs? That question was at the heart of the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s recent decision in the long-running equal pay litigation in Thandi v Next.
From April 2027, employees will have a new day-one statutory right to bereavement leave. The Government’s consultation response has now provided considerably more detail about how the new entitlement will operate.
For many years, claims involving litigants in person (“LiPs”) were often viewed as relatively straightforward from a litigation perspective. Increasingly, however, the emergence of readily accessible artificial intelligence tools is changing that landscape.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hopcraft v Close Brothers Limited [2025] UKSC 33—which held that car dealers and finance companies could not be liable in tort for undisclosed commissions, though the lenders may be liable where the commission arrangements created an unfair relationship with their customers within the meaning of s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA 74”)—the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) published its Redress Scheme on 30 March 2026, designed to offer an alternative route to compensation for would-be claimants wishing to bring CCA 74 claims. The Scheme applies to regulated motor finance agreements created between 6 April 2007 and 1 November 2024.
In 2025, we reported on the case of Angel v Black Horse Ltd [2025] EWHC 490 (KC), a decision made on appeal from the County Court to the High Court in relation to so-called ‘omnibus’ claims. This has now been the subject of a further appeal to the Court of Appeal.
For many employers, the Employment Rights Act 2025 can feel like a moving target. Just as businesses have got to grips with the changes introduced earlier this year, another wave of reforms is now on the horizon.
The recent High Court decision requiring Prince Harry and six other claimants to make an interim payment of approximately £9.5 million towards the defendant’s legal costs has brought into sharp focus an important aspect of litigation: costs.