BDBF, a leading employment law firm, welcomes Leigh Janes as its newest senior associate.

Leigh’s expertise in advising both employees and employers on all aspects of employment law across a wide range of industries and sectors, will bring innovative perspectives to BDBF. Her addition increases the firm’s team to six partners, 17 associates, and an eight-member practice team.

The firm’s ability to attract top talent like Leigh underscores its reputation for high-quality client service, a strong litigation record, engaging work, and a collaborative culture. BDBF has been consistently top-ranked by leading independent directories for representing senior executives for 12 years and is expanding its practice supporting employers on high-stakes employment matters.

Gareth Brahams, Managing Partner said, “Leigh’s experience in handling discrimination, harassment and whistleblowing cases matches perfectly with the kinds of issues that our clients seek our advice on. We’re excited to have her join our team.”

Leigh Janes said, “I’m thrilled to be joining BDBF and look forward to working with lawyers at the top of their field.”

For the 12^th consecutive year, BDBF has been ranked Band 1 in Employment: Senior Executive by Chambers UK in their 2026 Guide. Five BDBF partners are individually ranked for their employment law expertise, including three ranked in the Band 1 category. Additionally, BDBF has been newly ranked in the Partnership category, further demonstrating our expertise and leadership in this area.

BDBF is a leading specialist employment law firm based in the City of London. The firm have fought and won some of the highest value employment disputes of recent years against a range of ‘magic circle’ opponents. Their creative thinking has resulted in ground-breaking litigation outcomes in areas such as whistleblowing and discrimination law.

Recently the firm have acted for Tony Danker, the former boss of the CBI, who settled his legal action for wrongful dismissal with the business group for an undisclosed sum, after he was sacked with immediate effect in 2023 after complaints about his behaviour. They also successfully represented Rob Gagliardi in the first employment anti-suit injunction obtained under the new jurisdictional regime that applies post-Brexit. This injunction halted his former employer, Evolution, from pursuing claims against him in New York, setting a precedent in employment law. The firm represented Sebastian Lapinski in a high-stakes disability discrimination claim against Triton Investment Advisers LLP and Swedish respondents. Overcoming jurisdictional disputes, BDBF secured a Tribunal victory and EAT appeal dismissal, reinforcing employee rights under the Equality Act 2010 and Brussels Regulation. The entire team is reputed for its high quality legal advice.

Our team continues to deliver unmatched expertise and results for senior executives. Chambers says: “The people at BDBF are incredibly focused, knowledgeable and sharp.”

Employment lawyers recognised in our team and their rankings are:

Gareth Brahams – Band 1

A true titan in employment law, Gareth continues to lead with brilliance.

“Gareth delivered outstanding client service in all respects.”

“He is very smart, very effective and an excellent litigator.”

“Gareth Brahams is very commercial and tactically astute.”

Claire Dawson – Band 1

Claire’s razor-sharp expertise and client-first approach make her a standout star.

“Claire Dawson is really excellent and really good at handling clients.”

“She is extremely client-centric.”

“She provides good advice and is sharp, switched on and balanced.”

Paula Chan – Band 1

Paula’s powerhouse performance keeps her at the top of her game.

“Her experience was very evident. I always felt well represented and appreciated her pragmatism. She was always very easy to get hold of and I always felt well informed of progress.”

“Paula was always very professional, knowledgeable and sharp.”

“Paula is extremely good.”

Nick Wilcox – Band 3

Nick’s dedication and insight continue to impress clients and peers alike.

“Nick is a very safe pair of hands, is super responsive and is never flustered.”

“I trust his judgement and am very lucky and very grateful to have had him fight my corner.”

“He is well-placed to advise any individual or business in their moment of pain.”

Clare Brereton – Band 5

Clare is a rising star, making waves with her dynamic approach.

“Clare is fantastic. She is sharp, commercially aware and very personable, especially when dealing with sensitive and difficult matters.”

“Clare Brereton is an excellent new partner with lots of experience and a willingness to push the envelope for clients.”

“Clare is brilliant.”

Thank you to our clients, referrers and employment law colleagues for the incredible feedback.

If you would like to discuss your employment law needs, please contact your usual BDBF contact, email us at info@bdbf.co.uk or call us on 020 3828 0350.

 

The current framework of family leave and protections is undeniably complex, having grown incrementally over time into a structure that is challenging for many to get to grips with. This is already under consideration by the Government following a review opened in July 2025.

As recently published by Working Families, coupled with this complexity is a disparity in entitlements and workplace protections, resulting in a system that they feel is “letting down” families. Their research reveals startling statistics about parents’ inability to access financial support, with widespread impacts on gender equality, child development and broader economic growth. 

For Working Families’ National Work Life Week, Rose Lim, Knowledge Lawyer at BDBF, examines the current framework of family rights and entitlements in the UK and the reforms planned under the Employment Rights Bill, and considers the gaps which may be restricting families’ ability to thrive both at work and at home.

What is the current framework?

Leave Entitlements

The current legal framework provides, in summary, for the following entitlements relating to pregnancy, childbirth and associated care (including via surrogacy and adoption arrangements):

• Maternity leave and pay: 52 weeks’ statutory maternity leave (made up of 26 weeks’ ordinary maternity leave and 26 weeks’ additional maternity leave) and 39 weeks’ statutory maternity pay (or maternity allowance).
• Paternity leave and pay: 2 weeks’ statutory paternity leave, to be taken either as a single period or two separate weeks, and statutory paternity pay.
• Shared parental leave: Ability for parents to share the mother (or primary adopter)’s entitlement to 50 weeks’ maternity leave, with statutory shared parental pay.
• Parental leave: 18 weeks’ unpaid leave to be taken before the child’s 18^th  birthday.
• Bereavement leave: 2 weeks’ leave following the death of a child or a stillbirth with statutory parental bereavement pay.
• Neonatal care leave: 12 weeks’ leave to accommodate neonatal hospital care with statutory neonatal care pay.
• Dependant leave: Right to take ‘reasonable’ unpaid time off to help a dependant (including a child or partner) with an emergency.
• Time off for antenatal appointments: Right to paid time off for the mother (or primary adopter) to attend antenatal care appointments and, on two occasions, right of the partner to unpaid time off to accompany them at such appointments.

Each of the above rights is subject to eligibility criteria and notification requirements.

Many employers will have additional policies that benefit working parents, either by enhancing the statutory entitlement (most commonly with enhanced maternity pay), offering benefits from “Day One” of employment, and/or offering additional paid or unpaid leave.

Employers are also required to assess the health and safety risks posed to those who are pregnant or breastfeeding in the workplace and take any necessary steps to reduce them.

Protections

In addition to the leave entitlements outlined above, the law offers additional workplace protections for expectant and new parents.

Pregnancy / Maternity

Employees who are pregnant or on maternity leave have the protected characteristic of “pregnancy and maternity” under the Equality Act 2010, and are protected from unfavourable treatment due to their pregnancy, pregnancy-related illness or their having taken maternity leave. They are also protected from detriment and/or dismissal related to their pregnancy, maternity leave or giving birth, with dismissal being automatically unfair where it is connected to one of these factors.

In redundancy situations, employees who are pregnant, returning from statutory maternity leave or have otherwise given birth are entitled to be offered a suitable alternative role, essentially giving them priority over other colleagues to avoid redundancy. If such a role exists and is not offered to the employee, their dismissal will be automatically unfair.

On returning to work, employees who have been on ordinary maternity leave are entitled to the same position on the same (or no less favourable) terms. Those who have taken additional maternity leave are also entitled to the same role or a different suitable and appropriate role, again on the same (or no less favourable) terms.

Like all employees, those returning from maternity leave will be able to make a flexible working request. However, case law has established the existence of a ‘childcare disparity’, meaning that refusal of a flexible working request in these circumstances (or general inflexibility on working hours) can constitute indirect sex discrimination as a result of the increased expectation on new mothers to act as primary carer for children (Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust (EAT) UKEAT/0220/19/LA).

Paternity / Other Parental Leave

Employees who are on paternity leave are not specifically protected via the Equality Act 2010, but may in some circumstances be able to claim sex discrimination.

They are protected from detriment and/or dismissal for having taken (or seeking to take) paternity leave, or because their employer thought they were likely to do so. The dismissal will be automatically unfair if it is connected to these factors. The employee is additionally entitled to return to the same job (i.e. they are treated as if returning from ordinary maternity leave).

Similar protections also extend to those taking parental leave and shared parental leave.

What is on the horizon?

Under the Employment Rights Bill (the Bill), which is currently passing through the final hurdles towards Royal Assent, parental leave and paternity leave are due to become “Day One” rights (i.e. there will be no minimum service, as is currently the case). It will also become possible to take paternity leave after shared parental leave (with associated pay entitlements). These updates are expected to come into force on 6 April 2026.

The Bill also provides for regulations to be made expanding protections from dismissal, although the detail of these new protections remains to be seen. Based on the Bill as it stands, the regulations will be able to be made to cover pregnant employees and those returning from maternity, adoption, shared parental, neo-natal and parental bereavement leave. Notably, this expansion of protection does not appear to include paternity leave, except in cases of extended paternity leave for bereaved parents the new Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 (which is not yet in force).

In July 2025, the Government also opened a broad review into all parental leave and pay rights, including a Call for Evidence that ran until 25 August 2025. This will assess all types of family leave and pay and will run for 18 months before any changes are put forward. Please see our recent article here for further detail on this review.

What are the key gaps?

It is clear that there are significant differences in the legal protections and entitlements available to new mothers (or other primary caregivers) compared to their partners, the most notable being:

• Statutory paternity pay is not a “Day One” right, whereas statutory maternity allowance is available to all (if they do not qualify for statutory maternity pay).
• Paternity leave and pay excludes self-employed parents.
• Paternity (or otherwise being a child’s caregiver) is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
• Paternity leave and pay is limited to two weeks and cannot be extended without reducing the mother’s entitlement to maternity leave via shared parental leave.
• Future special protection from dismissal will not apply to those who have taken paternity leave. 

Whilst, to some extent, these differences are a necessary reflection of the impact of pregnancy, childbirth and maternity, commentators have raised concerns that it entrenches the idea of one partner being the ‘default’ caregiver and the other partner taking a secondary role. This can have a consequential impact upon career progression, recruitment bias and the gender pay gap, referred to by Working Families as the “motherhood penalty”. According to recent ONS data, monthly earnings five years after having children were reduced on average by 42% or £1,051 per month, compared with earnings one year before the birth.

In June 2025, the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) published a report noting how the present framework can make it challenging for fathers and partners to take a more active role as co-parent, and proposing that in order to promote equality, maternity and paternity rights should be “as equal as possible, to benefit mothers, fathers and families”.

Whilst the shared parental leave regime may have been intended to address the imbalance in available leave from work, it requires the partner who is entitled to maternity leave to ‘give up’ a portion of their entitlement. This may not be a practicable solution for many families, particularly in light of the fact that most companies enhance maternity offerings beyond the statutory minimum (making it a more attractive prospect than sharing parental leave). Even if it is financially viable, the WEC noted that cultural challenges of such leave being an exception rather than an entitlement can make it more challenging for partners to take it in practice, and statistics have shown that those taking shared parental leave face increased discrimination in the workplace. This is particularly significant considering the more limited discrimination and dismissal protections available to fathers and partners.

In addition to the direct impact, this reinforcement of parenting roles may additionally affect an employer’s perception and treatment of childcare responsibilities, particularly in terms of parents taking ‘informal’ time off or requesting flexible working.

In their response to the WEC on 19 September 2025, the Government reiterated the importance of their parental leave and pay review, and confirmed that a key aim must be to “incentivise greater gender equality in parenting responsibilities”. Whilst some headway has been made towards this in the proposals under the Bill, it is evident from the published debates that Parliament recognises there is still some way to go in ensuring that the UK’s framework enables both parents to take a positive and active role.

BDBF is a leading employment law firm based at Bank in the City of London. If you would like to discuss any issues relating to the content of this article, please contact Rose Lim (RoseLim@bdbf.co.uk), Amanda Steadman (AmandaSteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact

BDBF, a leading employment law firm, announces the appointment of Jamie Barton as Managing Associate and Rose Lim as Knowledge Lawyer.

Jamie rejoins BDBF, having previously been part of the firm from 2017 to 2019, bringing his extensive experience in advising senior executives and employers on complex employment law matters. His expertise spans discrimination, whistleblowing, and high-stakes litigation across various sectors, including financial services. Rose Lim joins as Knowledge Lawyer, contributing her deep legal insight and analytical skills to enhance the firm’s knowledge management and client support. Rose will work together with BDBF’s Principal Knowledge Lawyer, Amanda Steadman. Their arrival strengthens BDBF’s team, now comprising six partners, 16 associates, and an eight-member practice team.

The addition of Jamie and Rose reinforces BDBF’s commitment to delivering exceptional client service, underpinned by a collaborative culture and a strong track record in litigation. The firm has been top ranked by leading independent directories for representing senior executives for 12 consecutive years while expanding its practice to support employers on critical employment issues.

Gareth Brahams, Managing Partner, said, “We are delighted to welcome Jamie back to BDBF and to have Rose join our team. Jamie’s proven expertise and familiarity with our firm’s ethos, combined with Rose’s sharp legal acumen, will further elevate the strategic advice and support we provide to our clients.”

Jamie Barton commented, “It’s great to be back at BDBF where I cut my teeth as a junior employment lawyer. Having spent the past five years at another leading city firm, I have deepened my experience of acting in complex employment disputes – for both sides – and I look forward to bringing that experience back to BDBF.”

Rose Lim added, “I am delighted to have joined the Knowledge Team at BDBF, working alongside Amanda Steadman to support the firm’s growing team of lawyers in maintaining their first-class legal expertise.”

BDBF has been ranked as a top tier firm for Employment: Senior Executives by The Legal 500 UK 2026, the only firm in its category with all six of its partners ranked. BDBF’s team consistently provides exceptional expertise and results for senior executives. According to Legal 500, “BDBF are the absolute go-to firm for complex and high value claims.”

The firm has also secured a new ranking in the Partnership category, underscoring its expertise as specialist legal partnership lawyers.

BDBF also retains its longstanding ranking in the Employer category for the work it does for employers, including providing representation in high stakes litigation.

Employment: Senior Executives – Tier 1

Legal 500 recognises BDBF as “Preeminent in the senior executive space, Brahams Dutt Badrick French LLP demonstrates expertise in discrimination, whistleblowing matters and sexual harassment cases. Practice head Gareth Brahams has a solid record in discrimination claims and high-stakes disputes, whilst Claire Dawson regularly advises on high value severance packages and intricate disciplinary and grievance processes. Nick Wilcox is an expert in employment disputes, particularly in cases with a regulatory dimension. Experienced litigator Clare Brereton works on disability discrimination cases and personal injury claims, and Paula Chan has a wealth of experience in High Court and tribunal claims, such as whistleblowing, discrimination and breach of contract. Samantha Prosser defends consultants and senior healthcare professionals against disciplinary allegations, bullying and raises grievances.”

Individual rankings:

All six BDBF partners have been ranked by Legal 500:

• Gareth Brahams – Hall of Fame
• Claire Dawson – Leading Partner
• Paula Chan – Leading Partner
• Nick Wilcox – Next Generation Partner
• Clare Brereton – Next Generation Partner
• Samantha Prosser – Next Generation Partner

Testimonials:

“Nick Wilcox is a fantastic litigator. He is composed and has excellent judgment.”

“BDBF are the absolute go-to firm for complex and high value claims in respect of psychiatric injury suffered by senior executives, whether through bullying or stress at work. They have the knowledge and experience to address all aspects of those claims, including PHI/GIP entitlement, employment issues and the personal injury claim. They also are a leading firm for discrimination claims in the Employment Tribunal if that is the more desirable forum for the claim. They have the knowledge and experience of instructing and handling medico-legal evidence that is unmatched in the market.”

“Gareth Brahams is an absolute titan of employment law. What Gareth does not know is probably not worth knowing. Recently promoted Partner, Samantha Prosser, is a rising star. She has a calm and reassuring air with clients that is essential when dealing with vulnerable individuals at the most difficult time of their lives. Claire Dawson is the safest possible pair of hands for complex and high value psychiatric injury claims.”

“The team at BDBF are true experts in employment law. They came highly recommended and lived up to their reputation. They have an incredible wealth of experience in the field and appear to collaborate across the partners when there is a complex issue. I found their advice to be consistently sound and bold where it was needed. In terms of technology, I was amazed to see how AI was being used to help synthesise vast amounts of documentation to significantly reduce the need for many hours of human time. The other part that has been critical in my experience with the firm is their empathy for the personal impact of the process. For many clients, this may be the first and only experience of its kind, and dealing with individuals who show genuine compassion makes the world of difference.”

“I have had the privilege to work with Samantha Prosser and Gareth Brahams at BDBF, with Samantha being my key contact. From day one, Samantha showed understanding and compassion for the position I found myself in and guided me through it all step by step. She is incredibly knowledgeable, and her attention to detail is second to none. Her recall of the details of the case has been exceptional. As a client, it is important not to feel like a number, and Samantha made me feel that she was on the journey with me and genuinely cared about the outcome. Gareth’s guidance throughout has been invaluable, and you immediately know you are dealing with a highly experienced leader in his field.”

“Beyond their legal excellence, BDBF’s welcoming atmosphere sets them apart. Their administrative staff ensured a warm and professional client experience, greeting visitors with genuine hospitality.”

Partnership – Tier 4

In the Partnership category, Legal 500 comments that “Brahams Dutt Badrick French LLP has a robust offering which spans contentious, non-contentious, and advisory services ranging from litigation and investigations to exits and performance issues. The team is relied upon by a growing client base comprised of notable names from the financial, accountancy, and legal services sectors. Heading up the department is Gareth Brahams, who is regarded by clients as a ‘leader in the area’ and has a particular focus on whistleblowing allegations. He is supported by partnership experts Paula Chan, Claire Dawson, and Nick Wilcox.”

Testimonials:

“A very experienced and high-calibre team with good experience in LLP matters.”

“Uniformly high quality.”

“The firm provided excellent support in respect of a sensitive and difficult partnership dispute.”

“Paula Chan is excellent – very diligent, organised, and strategic.”

“Paula gave 100% at all times and her work and service levels were exceptional.”

“Genuine experts on partnership/LLP law. Go-to firm for acting for individuals, especially. Highly responsive and outcomes-focused.”

Employers – Tier 6

In the Employers category Legal 500 states that “The employment practice at Brahams Dutt Badrick French LLP excels in complex and high-stakes disputes, in addition to senior exits and day-to-day matters. Led by Gareth Brahams, the team primarily caters to domestic clients in regulated professions, including the financial services and insurance industries. Nick Wilcox handles high-profile disputes, including restrictive covenants and Employment Tribunal claims. Samantha Prosser became a partner in April 2025, while Polly Rodway became a consultant for the firm.”

Testimonials:

“Fantastic, well-rounded team with increasing profile on the employer side to match their experience on the employee side. The partners are well informed and engaged. The senior associates are phenomenal, and the most junior associates are responsible, sensible and given the opportunity to flourish.”

 “Nick Wilcox is a fantastic partner who is never afraid to get stuck in. His team leadership is fantastic. Blair Wassman is an absolute star – always on top of every detail. Abdullah Ahmed is a star for the future – so on top of everything and wise beyond his PQE.”

“BDBF is a team of highly skilled, dedicated employment lawyers with a high ratio of partners to associates. The quality of the team is excellent. Interesting and challenging work, and is a pleasure to deal with.”

“Nick Wilcox is great. Clever and really engaged in legal questions as well as in client-facing work. He is great with people and a real pleasure to work with. Claire Dawson is also a standout in my view.”

 “The team has been very dedicated to our ongoing employment tribunal. They are switched on, often going above and beyond with research and collating information that has really helped us and also our barrister get ready for a tribunal. They have shown particular strength in being able to pick up and get straight back into the particulars even with lengthy time lapses between certain parts of our ongoing tribunal.”

“Nick Wilcox, Blair Wassman and Abdullah Ahmed. All three are excellent, knowledgeable, reassuring and friendly. In particular Blair’s recall and ability to remember things has been amazing and extremely helpful in our prep.”

First and foremost, thank you to our team for their brilliance, creativity and dedication to securing the best outcomes for our clients. We are also grateful to our clients, referrers and employment law colleagues for the incredible feedback.

If you would like to discuss your employment law needs, please contact your usual BDBF contact, email us at info@bdbf.co.uk or call us on 020 3828 0350.

BDBF has been shortlisted as a finalist for Senior Executive Team of the Year and Boutique Law Firm of the Year at the prestigious IEL (International Employment Lawyer) Awards 2025.

These global awards celebrate the best of private practice and in-house teams, recognising excellence in employment law worldwide. Being shortlisted is recognition of our team’s dedication to our clients, expertise, and passion for delivering brilliant and creative legal solutions.

Winners will be announced at an award ceremony in London on 19 November 2025.

 

On 18 September 2025, BDBF’s Managing Partner, Gareth Brahams will be speaking at “Dismissal for HR: Shaping New Developments into Solution-Focused Answers for Employers,” a conference organised by White Paper. The session will address navigating suspected neurodivergence as a factor in an employee’s performance or behaviour, including strategies for encouraging a diagnosis and managing challenges posed by lengthy NHS waiting lists.

Register here

BDBF Managing Partner Gareth Brahams has been named in the prestigious Spear’s Magazine Employment Lawyers Index 2025. Renowned for his razor-sharp expertise, Gareth is celebrated for fearlessly championing clients in high-stakes discrimination and whistleblowing cases, as well as navigating complex sexual harassment disputes, securing seamless severances and crafting bespoke exit packages.

Gareth is a trusted advisor to high-net-worth individuals, including top-tier bankers, C-suite executives, asset managers, law firm partners and entrepreneurs. His ability to deliver results for these high-net-worth individuals has cemented his reputation as a go-to legal powerhouse.

Congratulations to all of those listed by Spear’s 2025. Read more here.

We are pleased to announce that BDBF Managing Partner Gareth Brahams, Partner Claire Dawson and Partner Paula Chan have been recognised in the Lexology Index: Labour & Employment 2025 report.

BDBF’s team of employment lawyers is top ranked by the leading legal directories and we’re delighted to see our lawyers recognised by the Lexology Index.

Congratulations to our fellow leading employment law practitioners who have also been ranked, and thank you to our peers across the employment law network for their feedback.

The Treasury has launched a consultation paper seeking views on changing the legal framework underpinning the Senior Managers & Certification Regime (the SM&CR) to reduce the burden on financial services firms.  At the same time, the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority have launched consultations setting out proposals to improve the functioning of the SM&CR in practice.

A reminder of the key components of the SM&CR

The SM&CR came into force in 2016 in the wake of the global financial crisis and the LIBOR scandal, with the aim of improving individual conduct and standards in banking.  The regime has three components:

• The Senior Managers Regime:this requires firms to seek regulatory approval to appoint individuals to senior manager roles (i.e. roles where they are performing a “Senior Management Function” (SMF)).  This approval is based on an assessment of whether the individual in question is fit and proper.  A “Statement of Responsibilities” (SoR) is required for each role and such individuals are subject to enhanced conduct standards.

• The Certification Regime:this requires firms to assess that individuals in roles which involve, or could involve, a risk of significant harm to the firm or its customers (known as “Certification Functions”) are fit and proper.  This must be done before commencing employment and reconfirmed on an annual basis.  As of June 2025, the Government says there are currently c262,000 such functions held by c139,000 individuals.

• The Conduct Rules:these rules set the basic standards of conduct required from individuals working in financial services firms covered by the SM&CR.

What changes are proposed by the Government?

On 15 July 2025, the Treasury launched a Consultation on reforming the legislative framework underpinning the SM&CR to reduce the burden it places on firms. The Government recognises that the SM&CR has delivered significant benefits by driving up standards in the sector, reflected in the fact that many other jurisdictions have sought to implement similar regimes.  However, it is noted that the SM&CR is more extensive than the equivalent regimes implemented in most other jurisdictions, and both firms and regulators consider there are elements of the SM&CR which are more burdensome than necessary.

Accordingly, the consultation seeks views on proposals on how the legislation can be changed to ease the regulatory burden on firms and address issues around its practical operation.  The proposals reflect the feedback received in response to an earlier Call for Evidence issued by the Treasury in 2023 under the Conservative Government.  It is said that this package of proposals will enable regulators to “radically streamline” the SM&CR, while also maintaining high standards.  The core proposals are discussed below.

The Senior Managers Regime

Views are sought on revising the legislation to reduce the friction and administrative cost caused by the large number of senior manager roles for which regulatory pre-approval is required before an appointment is made.  Specifically, regulators would be granted flexibility in how they define “Senior Management Functions”, allowing them to be more focused.  The intention is that this would facilitate an overall reduction of the number of senior manager roles.

Further, regulatory pre-approval for some senior manager roles would be removed, leaving the regulator to focus on certain roles only.  Where regulatory pre-approval was removed for a role, firms would be required to ensure the individual was fit and proper and would also be required to notify the regulator of such appointments (so that the regulator retained oversight).  Regulators would be able to introduce systems and controls to vary the process as needed and to monitor firms’ processes and compliance.   The intention is that this change would allow firms to appoint senior managers more efficiently while also maintaining standards and accountability.

The Certification Regime

Views are sought on removing the Certification Regime from legislation entirely and, instead, allowing the regulators to use their rulemaking powers to develop “a more flexible and proportionate regime”.  This would, amongst other things, remove the following obligations from legislation:

• the duty for firms to take reasonable care that no employee performs a Certification Function unless certified by the firm as “fit and proper” to do so;
• the requirement for firms, when considering whether to issue a certificate, to have regard to the regulators’ rules as to when an employee is “fit and proper” to perform a role;
• the requirement for firms to issue certificates annually and to keep a record of every employee who has a valid certificate; and
• where a firm decides not to issue a certificate to an individual, the requirement for the firm to give that person notice of the steps it proposes to take in relation to them and the reasons for it. 

Although similar requirements may well feature in any replacement regime operated by the regulators, the Government’s view is that a rule-based (rather than law-based) regime will afford greater flexibility to adapt the regime to better reflect risks posed by different roles and firms, and to adapt to changes within the sector.

Additional proposals

Views are also sought on a number of other points including:

• making changes to the requirements to submit updated SoRs to allow a more flexible approach;
• removing some of the prescriptive requirements of the Conduct Rules (e.g. regarding training) where they create a disproportionate burden;
• making changes to other prescriptive aspects of the legislation such as the need for the SoR to be included in the application for a pre-approval of a senior manager; and
• whether specific additional measures are needed to support the movement of international talent to senior manager roles in the UK.

What changes are proposed by the FCA?

In tandem with the Treasury’s Consultation, the FCA launched its own Consultation on proposed reforms to the SM&CR rules, to be implemented in two phases.   These proposals reflect the feedback received in response to a Discussion Paper issued by the FCA in 2023 (and you can read BDBF’s response to that Discussion Paper here).  The Government says these proposals are a “welcome further step in improving the SM&CR” but notes that they are limited by the need to operate within the legal framework.

The “phase one” proposals are to:

• improve the efficiency of the 12-week rule, which allows someone to cover for a Senior Manager without being approved, under certain conditions;
• streamline the SMF approval process, including planning potential changes to processes and communications;
• increase the validity period of criminal record checks for SMF applications;
• allow more time to report updates to SoRs;
• remove overlap in certification roles and provide guidance on annual certification to help firms streamline the process;
• allow more time for firms to update specified Directory information;
• guidance in areas such as: the applicability of key SMF roles; allocation of Prescribed Responsibilities (PRs); and application of Conduct Rules and related reporting requirements
• change guidance about the period in which firms should provide regulatory references about individuals upon request from a hiring firm; and
• raise the thresholds for becoming an Enhanced SM&CR firm.

The introduction of the “phase two” proposals will turn on the outcome to the Government’s Consultation discussed above.  These proposals are to:

• reduce the number of SMF approvals, by removing SMF roles or reducing pre-approvals;
• provide more flexibility to appoint interim SMFs before seeking approval by expanding the use of the 12-week rule;
• further streamline the SMF assessment process (e.g. the documents that are requested and the relevant systems);
• reduce the frequency of submission of SoRs, review the list of PRs, and simplify the Management Responsibilities Maps;
• design a streamlined regime to replace certification in a way that minimises burden and complexity while ensuring fitness and propriety of individuals;
• remove the Directory and explore with industry alternative ways to ensure consumers have other sources of information they require; and
• streamline Conduct Rule breach reporting.

Separately, the PRA has also launched its own parallel Consultation.

All three Consultations close on 7 October 2025.

Comment

Whilst there can be no doubt that the SM&CR has raised standards of individual conduct since its inception in March 2016, some aspects of the regime such as the requirement for annual certification of individuals’ fitness and propriety can prove burdensome for financial institutions. If reform of the SM&CR maintains its original goal of raising individual conduct standards for the benefit of the stability of the UK financial system, whilst also addressing some of the more onerous aspects  for employers, then that would be welcomed.   

BDBF is a leading employment law firm based at Bank in the City of London. If you would like to discuss any issues relating to the content of this article, please contact Nick Wilcox (NickWilcox@bdbf.co.uk), Amanda Steadman (AmandaSteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

BDBF represents Mr Lapinski in a claim for disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 brought against Triton Investment Advisers LLP and several individual respondents, including three non-UK-domiciled individuals referred to as the “Swedish respondents”. The Swedish Respondents challenged the Employment Tribunal’s international jurisdiction over them. At a Preliminary Hearing on the issue, the Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction. The Swedish Respondents’ appeal against that decision was dismissed by the EAT.

The Tribunal’s Decision

The Tribunal concluded that there was no failure in serving the claim upon the Swedish Respondents. The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 (the ET Rules 2013) in respect of service of claims were followed, and the claims were delivered to their attention. The Civil Procedure Rules in respect of service did not apply.

The Tribunal also determined that Mr Lapinski, who had been a member of Triton Investments Advisers LLP, had a good arguable case that he was an “employee” for the purposes of section 15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (the 1982 Act), which was intended to preserve the principles of the Brussels Recast Regulation post-Brexit (the Brussels Regulation). The Brussels Regulation is protective of the rights of employees (in the broad European sense) to pursue litigation in the jurisdiction in which they habitually carry out their work, including in cases involving overseas respondents, with a view to avoiding a multiplicity of claims and the uncertainty that would bring.

Grounds of Appeal

The Swedish Respondents argued that the ET Rules 2013 in respect of service of claims did not confer international jurisdiction. They contended that either service on them in person while they were present in England or an application to the High Court for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was required.

They also argued that section 15C of the 1982 Act did not apply as Mr Lapinski was not an employee, and, in any event, the Swedish Respondents were not his employer.

EAT Judgment

The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s judgment and dismissed all the grounds of appeal.

HHJ Auerbach held that the claim had been served correctly on the Swedish Respondents. The ET Rules 2013 provided a complete code for service, and no additional steps were required to establish jurisdiction over the Swedish Respondents.

He went on to hold that sections 15C and 15E of the 1982 Act were intended to maintain the protective approach of the Brussels Regulation for employment claims, ensuring that employees are not worse off post-Brexit. The Tribunal’s conclusion that Mr Lapinski had a good arguable case that he was an employee (in the broad European sense) by reference to the substance of the relationship between the parties, rather than the legal structure, was correct. As to the argument that the Swedish Respondents were not his employer in any event, section 110 of the Equality Act 2010 expressly provides for individual co-liability of employees and agents who do something that is treated as being done by their employer or principal.

In considering the appeal, HHJ Auerbach referred to the recent EAT decision of Kerr J in Cable News International Inc v Bhatti [2025] EAT 61, as well as Simpson v Intralinks [2012] ICR 1343, Powell v OMC Exploration & Production Ltd [2014] ICR 63 and Stena Drilling PTE Ltd v Smith [2024] EAT 57.

Comment

This decision is important for multinational organisations who frequently have UK staff working with, or reporting to, colleagues overseas. The judgment makes it clear that those overseas colleagues may be easily included as respondents to Tribunal claims for discrimination through compliance with the Employment Tribunal’s rules for service (here, under the ET Rules 2013 and, from 6 January 2025, under the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024). It will also be of interest to LLPs and LLP members since it makes it clear that LLP members may be within the scope of 15C of the 1982 Act.

BDBF instructed Daniel Stilitz KC and Patrick Halliday of 11KBW in the EAT.

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/eat/2025/77 

BDBF is thrilled to announce the well-deserved promotions of three exceptional employment lawyers: Blair Wassman and Theo Nicou to Managing Associate, and Connie Berry to Senior Associate. These promotions reflect not only their outstanding contributions to our clients and firm, contributing to our top-tier employment law rankings, but also our dedication to rewarding talent and fostering growth.

Blair Wassman is an experienced litigator who has consistently demonstrated sharp legal acumen and a client-focused approach, earning the trust of clients navigating complex employment disputes and delivering results. Similarly, Theo Nicou’s expertise and relentless dedication to achieving the best outcomes for clients is outstanding. His collaborative spirit, commercial acumen and innovative problem-solving aligns with the firm’s reputation for delivering results. Connie Berry, now stepping into the role of Senior Associate, brings an ability to provide creative and bold solutions combined with empathy and compassion, ensuring clients receive exceptional advice and representation in even the most challenging cases.

BDBF consistently deliver high-quality legal services whilst focusing on cultivating a culture that empowers its people to thrive. These promotions are a testament to that ethos, showcasing the talent and hard work that define the firm.

BDBF Managing Partner Gareth Brahams said, “The promotions of Blair, Theo and Connie are well deserved. Each of them demonstrate on a daily basis the passion, skill and dedication that are at the heart of BDBF’s success. Their contributions have not only strengthened our firm but also made a meaningful impact for our clients. I’m incredibly proud to see them take on these new roles and look forward to their continued growth.”