What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm

Employment Law in the UK within your reach Marta Inkin, London (2026)

25/09/2026

Failure to make reasonable adjustments: managers can be personally liable too

Can only the employer be held responsible for failing to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled worker? No. In certain circumstances, an individual employee, such as a manager, can also be personally liable.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed this in Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and Others [2026] EAT 128.

What does this mean in practice?

Reasonable adjustments are changes that remove or reduce a substantial disadvantage someone faces at work because of a disability. Depending on the circumstances, these might include changes to working hours, suitable equipment, additional breaks or a different way of carrying out duties. What is reasonable depends on the individual situation.

Ms Merriman worked through an agency as a tutor for a person with special needs. Her disabilities made it very difficult to attend the premises where she taught. She requested adjustments, including teaching online instead of face to face.

The Employment Tribunal allowed her reasonable adjustments claim against the company to continue. However, it struck out the same claims against four individuals working for the company. Its reasoning was that the duty to make adjustments rested with the employer, so individuals could not face this type of claim.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that this was legally wrong.

Although the duty rests with the employer, a company acts through people. Where an individual employee’s action or failure to act amounts to a breach of that duty, the Equality Act 2010 can make that person personally liable too.

An employee can also remain personally liable even if the employer successfully argues that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the conduct.

This does not mean every manager is automatically liable whenever an adjustment is not introduced.

It is necessary to establish what the individual did, or failed to do, and whether the legal conditions for personal liability are met. Simply holding a management position is not enough.

Crucially, the appeal tribunal did not decide that the individuals in Ms Merriman’s case had discriminated against her or that they must pay compensation. It restored them as respondents to the reasonable adjustments claim. The allegations against each person still need to be clarified and decided by the Employment Tribunal.

What can workers take from this?
• Explain the difficulties your disability causes at work and what changes could help.
• Keep adjustment requests, emails and responses.
• Record who made decisions, what was agreed and what was not put into practice.
• If considering a claim against an individual, identify that person’s specific actions or failures to act.

For employers, this is also a reminder to train managers who handle adjustment requests and keep clear records of decisions and the reasons behind them.

Saying “adjustments are the company’s responsibility” is not enough to rule out personal liability for someone involved in a breach.

These Equality Act 2010 rules apply in England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland has separate legislation.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

03/09/2026

More Time to Bring an Employment Tribunal Claim – Changes from October 2026

From autumn 2026, individuals wishing to bring an Employment Tribunal claim will have more time to start proceedings. The primary time limit for bringing most claims will increase from three months to six months.

Statutory claims in England, Wales and Scotland

From 1 October 2026, a six-month time limit will apply to most statutory claims, including claims relating to:
• unfair dismissal;
• discrimination, harassment and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010;
• whistleblowing detriment and other statutory forms of detriment;
• unlawful deductions from wages;
• statutory holiday pay;
• remuneration payable during the statutory notice period under the Employment Rights Act 1996;
• rights under the Working Time Regulations 1998;
• TUPE and information and consultation obligations;
• the rights of part-time, fixed-term and agency workers.

The new time limit will apply only where the event giving rise to the claim occurs on or after 1 October 2026.

Where a claim concerns a series of events, the date of the last event will be relevant. Where the conduct extends over a period, the relevant date will be the end of that period.

If the event giving rise to the claim occurred before 1 October 2026, the existing three-month time limit will continue to apply.

Contractual claims in England and Wales

From 1 October 2026, the time limit for bringing contractual employment claims in the Employment Tribunal will also increase from three months to six months.

The change will apply where employment terminates on or after 1 October 2026.

Contractual claims may include:
• wrongful dismissal, including failure to pay for the applicable notice period;
• unpaid contractual salary;
• unpaid contractual bonuses or commission;
• unreimbursed business expenses;
• unpaid contractual allowances or other benefits;
• other breaches of the employment contract outstanding when employment ends.

Contractual claims can generally be brought in the Employment Tribunal only after employment has ended. The maximum amount that the Tribunal can award for such a claim will remain £25,000.

If employment ends before 1 October 2026, the existing three-month time limit will continue to apply.

Contractual claims in Scotland

In Scotland, the corresponding change for contractual claims will take effect later, on 9 November 2026.

This means that:
• if employment ends before 9 November 2026, the three-month time limit will apply;
• if employment ends on or after 9 November 2026, the time limit will be six months.

The later date applies only to contractual claims in Scotland. Most statutory claims in Scotland will become subject to the six-month time limit from 1 October 2026.

ACAS Early Conciliation

Before bringing most Employment Tribunal claims, the matter must first be notified to ACAS under the Early Conciliation procedure. This process may affect the final deadline for submitting an ET1.

An employer’s internal procedure—such as a grievance, disciplinary appeal or settlement negotiations—does not, by itself, stop the limitation period from running.

In every case, it is necessary to establish:
• the precise type of claim;
• the date of the relevant event, deduction or termination;
• whether the claim concerns a series of events or conduct extending over a period;
• the date on which ACAS Early Conciliation started and ended.

The new legislation will give workers more time to enforce their rights. However, it does not mean that every matter arising in 2026 will automatically benefit from a six-month time limit. The date of the event giving rise to the particular claim will be decisive.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

18/08/2026

Remote Work from Abroad and UK Employment Law

The case of Iryna Malyk v Teleperformance Contact Ltd highlights an increasingly common issue for remote workers: can an employee work from another country if their employment contract is based in the UK?

In June 2026, the Bristol Employment Tribunal dismissed Ms Malyk’s claim for unfair dismissal, finding that the employer was entitled to end her employment when she relocated to France and continued working remotely from abroad.

Background: Remote Work, Relocation and a Dispute About Place of Work

Iryna Malyk worked as a Regional Finance Business Partner. Her contract allowed her to work from home in Bristol, with occasional visits to the office. After the office closed, she worked fully remotely.

In 2024, her husband obtained a job in France. Ms Malyk informed her employer that she planned to relocate and continue working remotely from France. The company refused, citing legal and tax implications. They issued a reasonable management instruction requiring her to carry out her duties from within the UK.

Despite this, Ms Malyk moved to France and continued working remotely.

Why the Employer Won: Key Tribunal Findings

1. The employment contract required work from home in the UK — not “anywhere in the world”
Although the contract did not explicitly ban working from abroad, the Tribunal found that:
• both the employee’s and employer’s addresses were in Bristol,
• the role was defined as “home office” work in the UK,
• the contract relied entirely on UK employment law,
• employment was conditional on the right to work in the UK.
Together, these meant the contract implicitly and expressly required work to be performed from the UK.

2. The employer had legitimate reasons to refuse remote work from another country
The company argued that:
• working from France on a UK contract could breach French employment law,
• it could create tax and social security obligations,
• cross border employment would require a local French contract, which the company could not offer.
The Tribunal accepted these reasons as “substantial”, meaning serious enough to justify dismissal.

3. Refusal to follow a reasonable instruction justified ending the employment

Ms Malyk was clearly instructed to work from the UK. She continued working from France regardless.

In these circumstances, the employer acted within the law, and dismissal fell within the “range of reasonable responses” available to a reasonable employer.

What This Case Means for Employees in the UK

1. Remote work does not automatically mean you can work from any country
Even if a contract says “home office”, this usually means a home in the UK, unless the contract explicitly allows international remote work.

2. Employers can refuse cross border remote work for legal and tax reasons

Companies must comply with local laws relating to:
• tax,
• social security,
• work permits,
• employer obligations in the host country.

3. Moving abroad without employer approval can lead to dismissal

Even if the job is fully remote, the contract terms and legal risks for the employer are decisive.

What Employers Should Take Away from This Case
• Employment contracts should clearly state whether remote work from abroad is permitted.
• Companies should have a cross border remote work policy.
• Employers should respond promptly when an employee indicates plans to relocate.

Summary

The case of Iryna Malyk shows that in the UK, remote work does not give employees an automatic right to work from another country. If a contract is governed by UK law and specifies home based work in the UK, the employee must work from within the UK unless the employer agrees otherwise.

The Tribunal confirmed that an employer may lawfully end employment if an employee relocates abroad against a clear instruction — even if the role is fully remote.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

09/07/2026

"I Have Cancer. Will the Employment Tribunal Automatically Protect My Identity?"

Unfortunately, the answer is often no.

An anonymity order is a mechanism that allows the Employment Tribunal to protect the identity of a person involved in proceedings.

In practice, this usually means that instead of publishing a party's full name in the judgment and other publicly available documents, the Tribunal identifies them by their initials or another anonymised reference.

Importantly, an anonymity order does not mean that the hearing is held in private or that the judgment is kept secret.

Many people assume that if their case involves a serious illness or highly sensitive medical information, anonymity will be granted automatically.

Unfortunately, obtaining an anonymity order is far more difficult than most people realise.

What is an anonymity order?

Since January 2025, anonymity orders in the Employment Tribunal have been governed by Rule 49 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

The Tribunal may make an anonymity order where it considers it necessary:

• in the interests of justice; or
• to protect a person's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the right to respect for private life under Article 8.

Most commonly, this means replacing a party's name with initials in judgments and other publicly available documents.

Open justice comes first

Many claimants assume that because their case concerns their health, the Tribunal will automatically protect their identity.

That is not the starting point.

Employment Tribunal proceedings are governed by the principle of open justice.

This means that, as a general rule:

• hearings are public;
• judgments are published; and
• the public has a legitimate interest in knowing who is involved in court proceedings and why.

For that reason, anonymity is the exception, not the rule.

When deciding whether to grant an anonymity order, the Tribunal must balance an individual's right to privacy under Article 8 against the principle of open justice and freedom of expression under Article 10.

How does this work in practice?

Applications for anonymity most commonly arise in cases involving:

• serious medical conditions;
• mental health issues;
• disability discrimination;
• allegations of sexual misconduct or abuse; and
• other highly sensitive aspects of a person's private life.

However, the existence of sensitive medical evidence does not automatically justify anonymity.

Even where a Tribunal will hear detailed evidence about intimate medical treatment or long-term health conditions, it will still ask whether restricting open justice is genuinely necessary and proportionate.

When is anonymity more likely to be granted?

Every case turns on its own facts.

However, anonymity is generally more likely where identifying an individual could result in particularly serious consequences, for example:

• cases involving sexual offences or sexual abuse;
• children or especially vulnerable individuals;
• genuine risks to personal safety;
• exceptional psychiatric evidence demonstrating a real risk of significant harm; or
• other truly exceptional circumstances.

Ultimately, the Tribunal will always ask whether the individual's right to privacy outweighs the strong public interest in open justice.

What does this mean for employees?

If you are considering bringing a claim in the Employment Tribunal that involves your health, it is worth discussing anonymity with your solicitor.

However, it is important to understand that:

The fact that you have a serious medical condition - even cancer - does not automatically mean that the Tribunal will protect your identity.

Each application is considered on its own merits, and the person seeking anonymity must persuade the Tribunal that restricting open justice is both necessary and proportionate.

Final thoughts

Anonymity orders remain an important safeguard where they are genuinely justified.

However, in practice they are granted relatively rarely because the Tribunal starts from a strong presumption in favour of open justice.

Even cases involving cancer or highly personal medical information will not automatically meet the legal threshold.

That does not mean such applications should never be made. In many cases they are entirely appropriate.

What it does mean is that applicants should be aware that the threshold is high, and that the Tribunal will only depart from the principle of open justice where there is a compelling reason to do so.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

25/06/2026

Working During a Heatwave – How to Protect Health and Ensure Safety at Work

Heatwaves are becoming increasingly common in the UK, and high temperatures can significantly affect both health and workplace safety. For employers, this means taking proactive steps to ensure safe working conditions. For employees, it means understanding their rights and knowing how to protect themselves. Working in extreme heat is not just uncomfortable — it can be dangerous, and both sides have responsibilities.

Why High Temperatures Are a Risk

Excessive heat can cause dehydration, heat exhaustion, fainting, and in severe cases, heatstroke. Concentration drops, reaction times slow down, and the risk of accidents increases. People working outdoors, performing physical tasks, or working in poorly ventilated spaces are particularly vulnerable. Even healthy individuals can quickly become unwell in high temperatures, and symptoms of overheating often appear suddenly.

Employer Responsibilities During Hot Weather

Although UK law does not set a maximum workplace temperature, health and safety regulations require employers to provide conditions that do not endanger workers. This means employers must act when heat becomes uncomfortable or unsafe.

Employers should ensure access to cold drinking water, adequate ventilation, blinds or shading, and consider adjusting work patterns — for example, introducing more frequent breaks, shortening shifts, or scheduling the most demanding tasks for cooler parts of the day. Outdoor work requires additional precautions, such as providing shade and limiting exposure to direct sunlight. Every employer should also carry out a risk assessment that takes temperature and the nature of the work into account.

Employee Rights and Safe Working Practices

Employees have the right to raise concerns about excessive heat, request additional breaks, or ask for adjustments to their duties if the temperature affects their health. If conditions pose a serious and immediate danger, workers may refuse to continue working until the risk is addressed.

To stay safe, employees should drink water regularly, take short breaks, wear light and breathable clothing, and report any symptoms of overheating — such as dizziness, nausea, or weakness. Those working outdoors should also use sunscreen and avoid direct sun exposure during the hottest hours of the day.

When Work Should Be Stopped

If an employer cannot provide basic safety measures — for example, there is no ventilation, no access to water, or temperatures reach levels that pose a health risk — work should be reduced or temporarily halted. Protecting workers’ health must always come first, and ignoring heat-related risks can lead to serious health issues and legal consequences.

Summary

Heatwaves are more than an inconvenience; they are a genuine health hazard. Employers must take steps to ensure safe working conditions, and employees have the right to expect a safe environment. Proper organisation, access to water, regular breaks, and awareness of heat-related risks can significantly reduce the danger and help everyone stay safe during hot weather.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

12/06/2026

Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim in the UK: What You Need to Know

Being dismissed, experiencing discrimination, or dealing with unpaid wages or workplace issues can leave employees wondering whether they should bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal.

For many people, the idea of legal proceedings can seem daunting and confusing. In reality, however, Employment Tribunal claims follow a fairly structured process. Understanding what to
expect can make the whole experience much less overwhelming.

What types of claims can the Employment Tribunal deal with?

The Employment Tribunal deals with disputes relating to employment rights, including:

• Unfair dismissal;
• Discrimination;
• Harassment and victimisation;
• Whistleblowing claims;
• Unpaid wages or holiday pay;
• Redundancy-related claims;
• Certain claims arising from the termination of employment.

Not every workplace dispute falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and some claims may need to be pursued in the civil courts instead. It is therefore important to establish at an early stage whether the Employment Tribunal is the correct forum for your claim.

Does every employee have the same rights?

Not necessarily.

For example, ordinary unfair dismissal claims generally require at least two years' continuous service. However, there are important exceptions.

By contrast, there is no qualifying period of employment for claims involving:

• Discrimination;
• Whistleblowing;
• Harassment;
• Victimisation; or
• Equal pay.

This means that even employees with relatively short service may have valuable legal rights and potentially strong claims.

ACAS Early Conciliation – the first step

Before most Employment Tribunal claims can be issued, it is necessary to go through ACAS Early Conciliation.

This is a free process designed to help employees and employers resolve disputes without the need for legal proceedings.

Many cases are settled at this stage.

If no agreement is reached, ACAS will issue an Early Conciliation Certificate, which enables the claim to proceed to the Employment Tribunal.

Time limits are crucial

One of the most common mistakes employees make is waiting too long before taking action.

In most cases, claims must be brought within three months of the relevant event. Different time limits apply to certain claims, but the general rule remains the same – delay can be fatal to your case.

Claims brought out of time are frequently rejected by the Tribunal.

How does a claim begin?

An Employment Tribunal claim is started by submitting a form known as an ET1.

The claim form contains:

• details of the parties;
• the legal claims being brought;
• a summary of the relevant facts; and
• the ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate number.

Although detailed evidence is provided later in the proceedings, it is important to ensure that the claims are properly identified and drafted from the outset. Adding new claims later can be difficult and, in some cases, impossible.

What happens after the claim is submitted?

Once the claim has been lodged, the employer usually has 28 days to submit its response, known as an ET3.

The Employment Tribunal will then issue case management orders setting out the steps that both parties must follow. These commonly include:

• disclosure of documents;
• preparation of the hearing bundle;
• exchange of witness statements;
• preparation of a Schedule of Loss; and
• listing of a Preliminary Hearing where appropriate.

More complex cases, particularly those involving discrimination or whistleblowing, often involve one or more Preliminary Hearings before the final hearing takes place.

What evidence should you keep?

If you are considering bringing a claim, it is important to preserve all potentially relevant evidence, including:

• emails;
• text messages and WhatsApp messages;
• letters and correspondence;
• meeting notes;
• medical records;
• payslips; and
• your contract of employment.

It is also good practice to keep a contemporaneous record of significant conversations and events, including dates and details.

Can claims be settled?

Yes.

In fact, many Employment Tribunal claims settle without the need for a full hearing.

Settlement can be achieved:

• directly between the parties;
• through ACAS using a COT3 agreement; or
• by way of a Settlement Agreement.

Settlement often enables both parties to avoid the uncertainty, stress and expense associated with lengthy litigation.

Will you have to pay the employer's legal costs if you lose?

Unlike the civil courts, the Employment Tribunal generally operates on the basis that each party bears its own legal costs.

Orders requiring one party to pay the other's costs are relatively rare and are usually reserved for cases involving unreasonable conduct or failure to comply with Tribunal orders.

How long does the process take?

Employment Tribunal proceedings rarely conclude quickly.
From the date the claim is issued to the final hearing, it is not uncommon for the process to take more than a year. In more complex cases, it may take even longer.

For this reason, many claims settle before reaching a final hearing.

Need advice?

Every case is different. Whether you have a claim, the strength of your case and the steps you should take will depend on your individual circumstances.

If you believe your employment rights have been breached, or if you simply want to understand your options, I would be happy to help.

After reviewing your circumstances, I can advise you on the strengths and weaknesses of your case and discuss the most appropriate way forward.

Early legal advice can often make a significant difference to the outcome of a case.

If you would like to discuss your situation or arrange a consultation, please feel free to get in touch. I would be pleased to help you understand your rights and the options available to you - [email protected] and Whatsapp 020 7036 1900

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

17/05/2026

Late Claims and Late Arguments – an Important Lesson from Ndow v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust

What was the case about?

In Ndow v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EAT 64, the Employment Appeal Tribunal reminded parties of one of the harshest realities of Employment Tribunal litigation – even a potentially strong argument will not assist a claimant if it was not properly raised before the Employment Tribunal in the first place.

In reality, the case was not primarily about whether the claimant had actually been unfairly dismissed or discriminated against. The central issue was limitation and the way the claims had been presented. The Tribunal considered two types of claims: unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. In both cases, the Tribunal concluded that the claims had been brought too late.

What happened in practice?

The claimant was employed by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust as a healthcare assistant from 4 July 2009 until 8 June 2022. She was dismissed following an absence management procedure during which the employer concluded that she was no longer medically fit to continue in her role. On 22 June 2022, she submitted an internal appeal against her dismissal, and the appeal hearing eventually took place on 18 November 2022. One day later, on 19 November 2022, she was informed that the appeal had been unsuccessful. The claimant then presented Employment Tribunal claims on 10 and 12 January 2023, bringing claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

The difficulty was that, under Employment Tribunal rules, both unfair dismissal and discrimination claims generally must be brought within 3 months less one day from the relevant act complained of. In this case, the Tribunal concluded that the limitation deadline expired on 7 September 2022. The claimant only started ACAS Early Conciliation on 29 November 2022 and submitted her ET1 in January 2023 – more than four months after the primary limitation deadline had already passed.

For unfair dismissal claims, the Tribunal may only extend time where it was “not reasonably practicable” to bring the claim earlier. For discrimination claims, the Tribunal applies the broader “just and equitable” test. However, in this case, the Tribunal concluded that there was no proper basis to extend time under either test.

Why did the appeal fail?

In relation to unfair dismissal, the Tribunal concluded that it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim in time, meaning there was no basis to extend the limitation period. In relation to disability discrimination, the Tribunal decided that it would not be “just and equitable” to extend time. As a result, both claims failed entirely on procedural grounds before the Tribunal even considered the substantive merits of the allegations.

The claimant later appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. She argued, among other things, that the delay had been caused by the internal appeal process. She also argued that the rejection of her appeal itself amounted to a further discriminatory act and therefore formed part of a “continuing act” of discrimination extending into November 2022.

The EAT rejected those arguments very quickly. The reason was simple: those points had never properly been raised before the Employment Tribunal. They were not clearly pleaded in the ET1, were not properly argued, and were not supported by the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing.

Why is this judgment so important?

This judgment is a very important warning for employees pursuing grievances or internal appeals with their employer. In practice, many employees mistakenly assume that limitation deadlines “pause” while an internal process is ongoing. That is not how Employment Tribunal limitation works. In most situations, time continues to run regardless of whether an internal grievance or appeal is still ongoing. Simply pursuing an appeal does not automatically extend the deadline for bringing Tribunal proceedings.

In practice, I regularly encounter situations where clients seek legal advice only after their claims are already out of time – sometimes by a year or more. Quite often, these cases may appear strong on the merits. Clients understandably try to persuade me that because they suffered obvious unfairness or discrimination, the Tribunal will surely still hear the case despite the delay. Unfortunately, Employment Tribunal litigation does not work that way.

Limitation is one of the most important procedural issues in employment law. Even a very strong claim can collapse at the very beginning simply because it was brought too late. From the perspective of firms operating on a no win no fee basis, this also creates a major practical problem, because the risk of a claim being dismissed as out of time will often automatically prevent representation being offered under a conditional fee arrangement.

Conclusion

The Ndow case highlights a brutal but very real aspect of Employment Tribunal litigation. Sometimes claimants do not lose because their case is weak on the facts. They lose because the arguments were not properly prepared, pleaded and advanced at the correct stage – or because they sought advice too late.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

Employment Law in the UK within your reach Marta Inkin

25/09/2026

03/09/2026

18/08/2026

09/07/2026

25/06/2026

12/06/2026

17/05/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Sponsored

Share

Category

Listing takedown request

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm