Contractual terms and the money they generate: discretion, bonuses, deductions, good faith, and the duties senior employees owe.
The Court of Appeal holds that a scheme clawing back training costs from a departing employee engages the restraint of trade doctrine, and strikes down one that billed a trainee £8,108 for leaving. The Supreme Court granted Geeks permission to appeal on 29 October 2026.
From 1 January 2027, on the Government’s current timetable, a dismissal used to force through a cut in pay, hours or pension will be unfair unless the employer proves its survival as a going concern was at stake. Bogg and Green’s new Industrial Law Journal article is the first sustained reading of sections 104I to 104K; this note sets out what each side will have to prove.
An assistant head teacher sent a message under coercion and then said nothing for eighteen months. The tribunal held that her motive could not touch an objective test. The EAT has held that objectivity describes the observer, not the evidence.
A company chairman concealed a sale process from his own board, sincerely believing they would thank him in the long run. In Saxon Woods v Costa [2026] UKSC 21 the Supreme Court held that his sincerity was no defence: a director's good faith is judged by what he does, not what he believes. Team moves, boardroom exits, misconduct dismissals of senior executives: every dispute at the top of the workplace now has to reckon with this case.
The EAT in Chandrashekarappa v Wipro Ltd [2026] EAT 73 held that once a designated approver exercises the communicated discretion to award a bonus, the employee's entitlement crystallises. The employer cannot then introduce a new approval layer or a cap that was never part of the scheme as announced.
Racing Partnership established that a protected disclosure can provide a lawful excuse to a breach of confidence claim. Payone drew the ceiling: it does not extend to post-termination misappropriation or retention of employer documents. GQA refined the position for disclosures made in the course of obtaining legal advice. How the three decisions fit together.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Fasano confirms the limits of agency under the Equality Act, exposing a liability black hole for claimants in corporate group structures.
Analysis of GQA Qualifications Ltd v Clayton, where the High Court held that s.43D ERA protection extends to disclosures made to any person the worker believes is competent to provide legal advice, not just qualified lawyers.
A Watford Tribunal has awarded nearly £500,000 after 25 years of rolled-over leave. We run the numbers through our holiday pay calculator.
The ET found a farmer was neither employee nor worker. The High Court, on largely the same facts, found he was an employee. Both decisions stand. Hollington v Hewthorn explains why.
The EAT holds that an offer letter containing salary, start date, and benefits creates a binding contract even when expressed as 'subject to' references and right-to-work checks, those are conditions subsequent, not precedent. Three months' implied notice for a senior role.
The Court of Appeal's 2025 decision in Bradley v Abacus Land maps the territory between the implied Braganza rationality floor and full substitutionary review, defining what an express 'reasonably' qualifier adds to contractual discretions on sick pay, bonuses, and other employer powers.
Sir Charlie Mayfield’s plan to bypass the fit note system with standardised health plans offers a proactive alternative to economic inactivity, but its reliance on non-medical assessors and common standards introduces significant legal friction points for chronic ill health management.
Blocking a sick employee from accessing holiday pay is not merely a breach of the Working Time 'Regulations': it can be the catalyst for successful discrimination claims.
Breach of Contract (Wrongful Dismissal) · Restraint of Trade & Injunctions · Unlawful Deduction from Wages