What do the latest reforms, consultations and Court decisions mean for employers navigating fast moving change in 2026?

In this edition of The Loch Lens, we bring together the developments shaping workplaces, with clear insight to support compliance, effective governance and confident decision making.

Explore each story for practical takeaways, key lessons and actions to consider for your organisation, including:

We bring together legal insight and practical people strategy to help employers plan and act with confidence. For monthly updates delivered via LinkedIn, subscribe to our LinkedIn newsletter.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 first tranche of changes came into in force from 6 April 2026 and further measures are being developed through consultation.

A major structural change is the launch of the Fair Work Agency (FWA) on 7 April 2026, with 2026–27 described as a transitional year. The FWA has already brought together enforcement of employment agency regulations, gangmasters licensing, and serious labour abuse and modern slavery rules. It will also oversee National Minimum Wage enforcement via HMRC’s existing team under a contracting arrangement until a full transfer in April 2027. The Government’s has also advised that the FWA is preparing to commence holiday pay enforcement in 2027, with the FWA’s further expansion to cover other areas expected over time.

Several practical changes took effect from 6 April 2026. The maximum protective award for failures in collective redundancy consultation has doubled to 180 days’ pay, up from 90 days, for dismissals on or after that date. Statutory Sick Pay is now payable from day one, the Lower Earnings Limit has been removed, and SSP is calculated at the lower of the flat weekly rate or 80% of average weekly earnings. Family rights have also expanded, with paternity leave and unpaid parental leave becoming day one entitlements, subject to eligibility rules and notice, and reforms have made trade union recognition easier by removing the “likely majority support” test and the former 40% support requirement in recognition ballots.

Employers should note there are some compliance requirements and a “watch list” of developments. From 6 April 2026, employers now have a specific obligation to keep holiday entitlement and holiday pay records for six years, and failure to evidence compliance may amount to a criminal offence with potentially unlimited fines. Employers can also publish voluntary gender pay gap and menopause action plans from April 2026, with mandatory requirements expected from spring 2027 for larger employers.

Alongside consultations on a draft Code of Practice for trade unions’ right of access, closing 20 May 2026, reforms are underway linked to outsourcing and TUPE, via a Government Call for Evidence, closing 1 July 2026. 2026 is likely to remain a year of rapid change.

To learn about the Employment Rights Act and what it means for your organisation click here, and for access to our range of resources and details of our support package, click here.

The Department for Business and Trade has opened a consultation on a draft statutory Code of Practice to support the new legal framework for trade unions’ access to workplaces. The consultation was published on 8 April 2026 and closes on 20 May 2026.

The draft Code is intended to be the main source of practical guidance on how the new access framework should operate in practice, including how requests to be recognised should be made and how agreements should be negotiated and implemented across different workplace settings. It sits alongside the statutory changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025, which creates a new “right of access” framework into TULRCA 1992 (Chapter 5ZA).

A key feature of the framework, and the draft Code, is the emphasis on agreement first: employers and unions are encouraged to reach voluntary arrangements where possible, but where agreement cannot be reached the process can be escalated and determined by the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC). The Code also outlines how disputes may be resolved and includes practical templates for notices and notifications to support consistency.

Explore more on the open consultation here.

The Department for Business and Trade has launched a consultation on draft regulations designed to prevent the misuse of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) where workplace harassment or discrimination is alleged. The consultation, dated 15 April 2026, forms part of the Government’s “Make Work Pay” programme and closes on 8 July 2026.

The proposals are driven by the Employment Rights Act 2025, which will amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 by introducing a new provision (section 202A) on NDAs. Once in force, it will render void any term in an agreement between an employer and a worker so far as it prevents the worker from speaking out about “relevant harassment or discrimination”, or about the employer’s response to it, including the handling of an allegation. Importantly, it is intended to apply to agreements entered into after commencement, rather than retrospectively.

The consultation focuses on the detail: the Government is seeking views on the conditions for an “excepted agreement” , i.e. where an NDA may still be valid, the list of permitted disclosures and individuals a worker must still be able to speak to, and whether the scope should be expanded in future beyond the standard definition of “worker”. It is also explicit that this is about NDAs used to restrict disclosures of harassment/discrimination, not confidentiality clauses protecting trade secrets or sensitive commercial information.

Read more on the consultation here. 

In Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) confirmed that an apparently “conditional” job offer can still create a binding contract earlier than employers may assume. The central issue was whether the stated conditions prevented a contract from forming at all, or whether they operated after formation, thereby limiting the employer’s ability to withdraw without liability.

The Claimant was offered a role subject to satisfactory references, a right to work check and a six-month probation period, with a start date and core terms set out and a £3,000 relocation contribution offered. He accepted, provided onboarding information and documents, but the employer later said it was “no longer able to offer” the contract due to project delay.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed his breach of contract claim, treating the offer as still conditional when withdrawn. The EAT held the Tribunal had erred by not properly considering whether the conditions were subsequent, operating after the contract had formed, rather than precedent, preventing a contract from arising. On the facts, the EAT found there was a concluded contract: the offer letter contained key terms and the employer had taken steps consistent with employment beginning, so the conditions were best understood as permitting termination if not met, rather than stopping a contract from existing.

As the contract did not specify notice, the EAT implied a term requiring reasonable notice and held three months was reasonable given the seniority of the role, the recruitment process and the international move. 

For more on the EAT Judgment read on.

In Boateng v Moss Bros Group Ltd, the EAT upheld an Employment Tribunal decision to strike out Equality Act claims on the basis that, after substantial delay, a fair trial was no longer possible. The EAT confirmed that strike out can be justified where the evidential position has deteriorated to the point that the issues cannot be tried fairly.

The Claimant brought wide ranging claims alleging around 30 acts of discrimination, harassment and victimisation dating back to 2017, alongside unfair dismissal. He was dismissed in October 2019 and issued proceedings in February 2020. Progress was heavily delayed first by the COVID-19 pandemic and then by the Respondent entering a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) between December 2020 and March 2022.

At a preliminary hearing in 2023, the Tribunal struck out the Equality Act complaints under the “fair hearing no longer possible” ground, largely because key witnesses were no longer available: most of the individuals involved had left the business, and many were uncontactable or unwilling to engage. The EAT dismissed the appeal, emphasising that the critical question is whether any reasonable steps could still enable a fair hearing; it was entitled to conclude that witness orders or attempting to proceed on only parts of the case would not realistically cure the prejudice in a claim of this scale.

Learn more about the Judgment from the EAT here.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has updated its UK GDPR guidance on lawful bases for processing to reflect changes introduced by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. A key addition is a new lawful basis called “recognised legitimate interest”, designed for a limited set of pre-approved public interest purposes set out in Annex 1 to the UK GDPR.

Recognised legitimate interest applies where processing is necessary for one of five specified conditions, including safeguarding, responding to emergencies, preventing/detecting/investigating crime, national/public security or defence, and sharing information in response to a request where another organisation needs it for its public task or official functions. Because these purposes are “pre-approved” by law, organisations do not need to carry out a balancing test in those scenarios, unlike the standard legitimate interests basis.

However, the ICO is clear that this is a lawful basis, not an exemption: organisations must still comply with the wider UK GDPR requirements, including transparency, the data protection principles and enabling individual rights, including the right to object. It also does not apply to public authorities when processing data in the exercise of their official functions, and additional rules still apply where special category or criminal offence data is involved.

Read more on this ICO guidance around recognised legitimate interest here.

In Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd and Neidle, the High Court granted partial strike out and summary judgment in favour of the Defendants and made a declaration that the claim was a statutory SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.

The case concerned a libel and malicious falsehood claim brought by a tax barrister, Mr Setu Kamal, in response to a published article by Tax Policy Associates Ltd and Dan Neidle, a tax commentator, which criticised a tax scheme promoted online and referred to Mr Kamal’s involvement. The Defendants applied for a terminating ruling without trial, relying in particular on defects in pleading, an honest opinion defence, and the new statutory SLAPP regime.

The Court struck out the malicious falsehood claim and parts of the libel case and concluded there was no real prospect of the claim succeeding such that summary judgment was appropriate. It also confirmed this was the first occasion on which the High Court had been asked to consider applying the new SLAPP provisions in the Civil Procedure Rules. The decision underlines the growing significance of the statutory SLAPP framework, including its impact on strike out and costs.

For more on the Judgment for this case click here.

In Mrs P Smith v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Employment Tribunal dismissed wide ranging claims including direct age, race and sex discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to disability (Watford, heard January–February 2026; reserved judgment March 2026). The Claimant, a Public Access Officer at Stoke Newington Police Station, was accepted to be disabled due to Crohn’s disease and mobility issues, and the dispute centred on toilet access on her return to work.

The Claimant argued that the lack of a suitable ground floor option placed her at significant disadvantage, given the only ground floor female toilet and the alternative facilities, an accessible toilet upstairs and female toilets across the car park, were not practical in urgent situations. On the sex discrimination arguments, the Tribunal rejected the argument that the arrangement amounted to less favourable treatment, noting wider female facilities on site and operational context, and it dismissed the indirect sex discrimination claim because no group disadvantage to women was established on the evidence.

On the reasonable adjustments issue, the Tribunal accepted there was a substantial disadvantage but held the Respondent had taken reasonable steps by investigating options and progressing work to convert a men’s shower cubicle into an additional toilet, with an estimated cost of around £21,000, and that the delivery timeframe was reasonable in context. It also rejected the harassment allegations, finding the communications about alternative toilets and the walkaround exercise did not meet the legal threshold for creating a hostile or degrading environment.

Discover more on the Judgment in this case here.

In National Crime Agency v DP and others, the EAT considered how section 56 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 applies in Employment Tribunal proceedings, and whether cases touching on interception related issues must automatically be heard in closed session.

Section 56 is drafted widely, restricting evidence and disclosures that would reveal interception material or even “tend to suggest” interception related conduct. There are limited exceptions, including provisions linked to closed proceedings on national security grounds.

The EAT rejected an approach that would make closed hearings effectively inevitable simply because a Claimant’s work might have involved interception related matters. It emphasised that closed procedure is a serious departure from open justice and should remain a fact specific, proportionate response to genuine national security risk, not a default position.

Using the Human Rights Act interpretative duty, the EAT held that, in this context, section 56 should be read as aimed at cases involving particular interception related conduct, so the Tribunal can manage cases with targeted safeguards and only move to closed proceedings where truly necessary.

Explore the EAT Judgment further here.

As an extension of your team, Loch connects the dots between leadership, compliance, and people strategy.

Our integrated approach provides commercially focused, pragmatic solutions that help you when you’re faced with a decision that will protect, grow, or futureproof your organisation. By covering every angle, we give you the confidence to move forward for long term success.

0203 667 5400 | hello@weareloch.com