
Unfair dismissal: progression-based performance models and Polkey pitfalls
In Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd, the EAT held that Employment Tribunals must apply the correct counterfactual when assessing Polkey deductions and carefully analyse whether

In Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd, the EAT held that Employment Tribunals must apply the correct counterfactual when assessing Polkey deductions and carefully analyse whether

On 5 February 2026, the Government opened a consultation on the flexible working changes included in the Employment Rights Act 2025. In particular, views are

On 4 February 2026, the Government opened a consultation on certain aspects of the fire and rehire changes included in the Employment Rights Act 2025.

In this 45-minute webinar, BDBF Senior Associate Leigh Janes and Knowledge Lawyer Rose Lim look at the perks and pitfalls of employees using AI tools

In this briefing, we look back at the key developments that took place in this significant year for employment law, reflecting on the most interesting

The Employment Rights Bill completed its passage through Parliament on 16 December 2025 and is expected to receive Royal Assent in the coming days. Controversially,

On 26 November 2025 the Government published a working paper setting out options for the reform of non-compete clauses in employment contracts. What is the

Following several rounds of debate between the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the Employment Rights Bill (Bill), the Government announced in

The Court of Appeal has ruled that Timis and Sage v Osipov binds Employment Tribunals to permit claims brought by employee whistleblowers for the “detriment

On 23 October 2025, the UK Government launched the first of their consultations on the new rights set out in the Employment Rights Bill (Bill),

Last month, the Government opened a consultation on enhancing protection from dismissal for pregnant women and new mothers during a protected period. At its most

In Henderson v GCRM Ltd & Ors, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has considered whether it is possible to hold an “innocent” decision-maker liable for the