header-logo header-logo

03 December 2025
Issue: 8142 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Compensation
printer mail-detail

More changes to the Employment Bill?

MPs will vote next week on an amendment to fast-track the change to the unfair dismissal qualifying period, as the government’s flagship Employment Rights Bill returns to the Commons

Angela Rayner MP’s amendment would implement the change next April rather than April 2027—while the Bill itself is scheduled to come into force in April 2026, the qualifying period is delayed until 2027 to give employers more consultation time.

Last week, ministers scrapped their manifesto plans for day-one protection from unfair dismissal, instead reducing the current 24-month period to six months in order to ensure the legislation passes through the House of Lords in time.

Lawyers have largely welcomed the U-turn.

Jo Mackie, employment partner at Michelmores, said a day-one right to unfair dismissal would have been ‘unwieldy and unworkable and we predicted this would happen as soon as it was launched.

‘Probation periods are important for both employees and employers and the tribunals would really have struggled to keep up with the raft of new claims that would have arisen’.

Rena Magdani, partner at Freeths, said the decision ‘offers clarity to employers and employees and avoids what would likely have been complexity and uncertainty generated by the government’s proposed “light-touch procedure” during an “initial period of employment”’.

Ministers also confirmed last week the unfair dismissal compensation cap will be lifted.

Magdani said: ‘The current compensation cap is the lower of one year’s pay or £118,223. 

‘While the average unfair dismissal award is significantly lower than this cap, if the cap is significantly increased or removed, then the level of exposure to employers in unfair dismissal claims will increase, particularly in cases of high-earners, or those whose dismissal results in them leaving defined benefit pension schemes, or employees who struggle to find alternative employment.’

The Bill will retain day-one rights to sick pay and paternity leave.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll