Welcome to the latest edition of The Loch Lens, where we share key insights relevant to every employer and business leader, including:
- Court of Appeal Confirms Pilot’s Worker Status
- Lifelong Anonymity in Sexual Assault-Linked Employment Claims
- No Need to Prove Dishonesty to Revoke Sponsor Licence
- Whistleblowing Amendment: New Duty to Investigate Disclosures
- Race Discrimination Rulings Against Council
- Third Sitting of House of Lords for Employment Rights Bill
- Tribunal Erred in Constructive Dismissal Analysis
- Delayed Justice and Legal Errors Lead to Rehearing
To stay informed on the latest developments in employment, HR, commercial and family law, immigration, training, and mediation, don’t forget to subscribe to our LinkedIn newsletter.
In Lutz v Ryanair DAC & Storm Global/MCG Aviation [2025] EWCA Civ 849, the Court of Appeal upheld the finding that a pilot engaged via an agency arrangement qualified as a “worker” under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR). Despite a five-year fixed-term placement with Ryanair, Jason Lutz was found to be legally employed by Storm Global, entitling him to statutory protections.
The Court confirmed that “temporary” agency work under AWR can include long-term, fixed-duration assignments. As Storm Global contracted and paid Mr Lutz, it remained his employer for the purposes of working time rights, holiday entitlement, and equal treatment under both the AWR and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations (CAWTR).
This ruling is a clear warning to businesses using long-term agency staff. The length of a placement does not exclude agency workers from statutory protections, even where day-to-day direction comes from a third party. Employers in sectors such as aviation, construction, and IT should review contracts and ensure compliance with pay, leave, and working-time entitlements.
With the decision expected to unlock dozens of similar claims, particularly from other Ryanair pilots, businesses should prepare for increased scrutiny of tripartite labour arrangements. Early audits and policy reviews may help mitigate future legal and financial exposure.
Learn more about this case here.
In AYZ v BZA [2025] EAT 91, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled that claimants linked to sexual assault allegations must be granted permanent anonymity across both Employment Tribunal and EAT proceedings. This overturns an earlier Employment Tribunal decision that had declined anonymisation.
The EAT found that disclosing the claimant’s identity, even in a separate legal context, could lead to “jigsaw identification,” breaching protections under Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. These statutory safeguards apply regardless of whether the assault allegation relates directly to the employment claim or results in a prosecution.
Tribunals must now ensure anonymisation is applied rigorously, including issuing separate judgments where needed. This ruling confirms that the principle of open justice can be lawfully overridden to uphold the privacy rights of individuals in sexual offence-related cases.
For employers, the decision is a clear reminder to adopt privacy-first practices in misconduct cases involving sensitive allegations. Internal communications, investigation reports, and litigation strategies must reflect the legal duty to protect anonymity from the moment such an allegation arises.
In R (HE Reigns Healthcare Services Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025], the High Court confirmed that the Home Office can revoke a sponsor licence without needing to prove dishonesty, where an employer fails to demonstrate that sponsored roles are genuine vacancies.
The case involved a home care provider whose sponsor licence was revoked after the Home Office raised concerns over 124 sponsored roles, 50 of which were unaccounted for in PAYE records. Despite multiple opportunities, the company failed to provide sufficient evidence that meaningful work existed for these positions.
The Court held that dishonesty is not a necessary condition for revocation. Even where failings result from negligence or poor planning rather than fraud, the Home Office is entitled to act. The decision reaffirms earlier case law, making clear that only where dishonesty is alleged do heightened procedural safeguards apply.
For sponsors, compliance is about diligence. Employers must be able to show active work, accurate records, and genuine operational need for every sponsored role. Failure to do so may result in the loss of sponsor status.
On 16 July 2025, the House of Lords passed Amendment 96 to the Employment Rights Bill, creating a statutory obligation for larger employers to investigate protected whistleblower disclosures. The duty applies to organisations with 50+ employees, turnover or balance sheet over £10 million, or operating in financial services or high-risk sectors. Employers must take “reasonable steps” to investigate disclosures, with formal guidance to follow within six months of Royal Assent.
The amendment also broadens protections for whistleblowers. Dismissals will now be automatically unfair where a protected disclosure was one of the reasons for termination, not just the main reason. A new statutory Office of the Whistleblower will be established within a year to set reporting standards, oversee enforcement, and void NDAs used to suppress disclosures. Detriment against whistleblowers may lead to fines of up to £50,000 or 10% of global turnover.
These changes aim to embed whistleblowing as a risk management tool, with research showing that nearly half of corporate fraud is uncovered through internal reporting. Backed by public support, the new duty is expected to encourage earlier intervention, improve trust in workplace culture, and offer clearer protections for employees who speak up.
The Bill returns to the House of Commons for review. If enacted, most changes will be phased in from April 2026. Employers should begin preparing by reviewing whistleblowing policies, ensuring reporting procedures are robust, and training HR teams on updated dismissal risks and compliance expectations.
The Court of Appeal has upheld findings of direct race discrimination against Leicester City Council in Leicester City Council v Parmar [2025] EWCA Civ 952. Mrs Parmar, a long-serving British employee of Indian origin, was unfairly disciplined and removed from her role, treatment not mirrored in similar cases involving white colleagues.
The Tribunal found race was a factor in her treatment, a view supported by both the EAT and the Court of Appeal. A key issue was the Council’s failure to disclose documents central to the disciplinary case, which the Tribunal said allowed for adverse inferences.
The Council’s challenge to the Tribunal’s use of comparators also failed, with the Court confirming the white colleagues were valid points of comparison. Though the judgment contained minor ambiguities, the Court deemed it fair and well-reasoned overall.
The case underlines the importance of consistent disciplinary processes, proper documentation, and full disclosure in discrimination cases.
You can read more about this here.
On 21 July 2025, the House of Lords held its third Report Stage sitting on the Employment Rights Bill. Key developments included approval of government amendments establishing new negotiating bodies for school support staff and adult social care workers. A further amendment was passed to allow employers to offer better terms than the national framework.
The Lords also debated AI in the workplace. While a proposal for mandatory AI risk assessments was withdrawn, the government reaffirmed its commitment to AI oversight and plans to release an update on its “AI management essentials tool.”
Other topics included non-compete clauses, now affecting an estimated 5 million workers, and a rejected proposal to keep the 10% trade union recognition threshold. The government will consult on lowering this to between 2% and 10%.
The Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent by autumn 2025.
Learn more about this.
In Wainwright v Cennox plc [2023] EAT 101, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that the original Tribunal erred in dismissing a constructive dismissal claim. Ms Wainwright, undergoing cancer treatment, discovered her role had been reassigned despite assurances, and resigned after delays in the grievance process.
While her discrimination claim succeeded, the Tribunal wrongly concluded she resigned based solely on a mistaken belief. The EAT found the Tribunal failed to assess whether the discriminatory treatment breached trust and confidence, contributing to her resignation.
The case was remitted and a new Tribunal upheld both claims, awarding over £1.2 million, including £40,000 for injury to feelings. The ruling confirms that discriminatory acts can amount to contractual breaches in constructive dismissal claims.
More on this case can be found here.
In Chase v Northern Housing Consortium Ltd and another [2025] EAT 104, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned a Tribunal’s decision following a 13-month delay and serious legal errors. Mrs Chase, a procurement director, raised concerns about expired supplier contracts, missed re-tendering, and possible misuse of public funds. She claimed she faced bullying and was denied reasonable adjustments before resigning.
The Tribunal’s delay led to a rushed and poorly reasoned judgment. It addressed only 37 out of 93 pleaded detriments and issued vague conclusions. The EAT held that this level of delay breached the claimant’s right to a fair hearing and made the Tribunal’s findings unreliable.
The Tribunal also failed to consider properly pleaded claims about reasonable adjustments. It wrongly treated them as new because they weren’t listed in the case management document. The EAT confirmed that Tribunals must consider pleaded claims where justice demands it, even if they fall outside a formal list of issues.
Finally, the Tribunal misapplied section 43C(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It wrongly found that disclosures to an external auditor weren’t protected. The EAT clarified that disclosures made through authorised external procedures can still qualify for protection, even if the third party isn’t part of the employer’s internal structure.
As an extension of your team, Loch connects the dots between leadership, compliance, people strategy, and business growth when partnering with ambitious organisation leaders and individuals to solve complex challenges.
Loch’s integrated approach provides commercially focused, pragmatic solutions that help you when you’re faced with a decision that will protect, grow, or future-proof your future. By covering every angle, we give you the confidence to move forward for long-term success.
