Welcome to the latest edition of The Loch Lens, where we share legal developments that matter to employers and business leaders, including:

We combine legal insights that support compliance, with practical thinking on people strategy and smart decision-making. For monthly updates delivered via LinkedIn, subscribe to our LinkedIn newsletter.

In Attorney General v Mallon, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered an application to restrict further claims by Christian Mallon, who had brought thousands of unsuccessful discrimination claims against prospective employers. The Tribunal found he routinely applied for jobs not to obtain employment, but to generate discrimination claims, causing widespread cost and disruption.

The EAT imposed an indefinite Restriction of Proceedings Order, finding Mr Mallon’s conduct met the statutory test for vexatious litigation. He is now barred from bringing new Employment Tribunal claims without prior permission, and several existing claims were halted.

Although rare, this case shows the Tribunal system will intervene in extreme cases of abusive litigation. For employers and practitioners, it highlights that persistent, meritless claims can ultimately be restrained, but only where there is strong evidence of systematic abuse.

To learn more about this case, click here.

A Christian social worker whose job offer was withdrawn over social media posts about homosexuality has won an appeal.

In 2024, a Tribunal found that Felix Ngole was directly discriminated against when mental health charity Touchstone Leeds rescinded a conditional job offer after discovering online posts in which he described homosexuality as sinful. However, the Tribunal rejected his claims relating to a second interview and the final decision not to appoint him. Ngole appealed, and in a judgment issued on 16 February 2026, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found the Tribunal had “erred in law” in its analysis of those issues.

The case has now been sent back to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration of the requirement for a second interview, and the decision not to reinstate the job offer.

The decision reinforces that employers must clearly separate concerns about the expression of beliefs from the holding of protected beliefs, and must justify any adverse treatment with properly analysed, proportionate reasons.

You can read more about this case here.

A company director has failed in a bid to keep his name out of a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) published by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

The SFO agreed a DPA with construction firm Bluu Solutions Limited in 2019, and a second DPA with Tetris-Projects Limited relating to a separate offence of failing to prevent bribery. When the DPAs were approved, two individuals and Bluu were not named because criminal proceedings were ongoing.

One of Bluu’s directors, Robb Simms-Davies, was later charged (along with others) with bribery offences but was acquitted in 2023. The Bluu DPA was subsequently published in a de-anonymised form that included his name.

Simms-Davies sought to quash the judge’s order to publish the de-anonymised judgment. However, in Robb Simms-Davies v Southwark Crown Court, the High Court noted the individuals had already been named in the criminal proceedings, and that the SFO website published material alongside the DPA making the link between the individuals and the events described “obvious”.

The court also emphasised that the DPA ruling did not involve findings of guilt against the director, but said identifying individuals can be necessary for the public to understand why the court approved the agreement. Dismissing the claim, Lord Justice Lewis said the principle of open justice applies to the DPA approval process.

An SFO spokesperson said it welcomed the clarity on naming individuals as part of published DPAs.

Read more about this case in The Law Society Gazette.

A police officer with HIV has been awarded £40,000 after an Employment Tribunal found he was treated in a stigmatising and humiliating way at work.

The officer, known only as Officer X of Gwent Police, was diagnosed in November 2024 and informed colleagues before attending occupational health (OH). Notes from an OH nurse suggested he take time off and consider restrictions, including driving, despite the officer later being told by an NHS HIV specialist that removal from frontline duties was not necessary and receiving information about treatment and transmission.

The Tribunal heard that the OH nurse asked intrusive questions about the officer’s sex life, including whether he used condoms. Officer X said the questioning left him feeling “ashamed, disgusted and angry”, and he asked not to have further contact with her.

In December 2024, the officer was informed his frontline duties would be restricted. The Tribunal heard the decision was made without proper understanding of HIV transmissibility and without clarity on whether his role involved any “exposure-prone procedures”. Officer X said the restrictions made him feel like a “walking disease”.

The Tribunal found the force’s OH knowledge was out of date, and that the questioning violated the officer’s dignity and created a degrading environment. It upheld claims including direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and harassment related to disability. He was awarded £35,200 for injury to feelings and £5,000 in aggravated damages.

Gwent Police said it accepted it “got this wrong” and is implementing learning measures, including HIV training for officers and staff and additional training for OH practitioners.

More about this case can be found on Personnel Today and the BBC.

Sanju Pal was a high-achieving management consultant at Accenture, with awards and high-profile invitations to her name. But in 2019, after taking time off for surgery to remove ovarian cysts caused by severe endometriosis, she missed a performance target and was dismissed.

Pal says she returned to work too soon and was open with HR about ongoing pain, bleeding and fatigue. At her six-month review she was told she would not meet her target, then was terminated and instructed to leave the building without contacting colleagues. She later lost an internal appeal, and with it her private medical cover at a critical point in her illness.

In 2022, an Employment Tribunal upheld her unfair dismissal claim but awarded no compensation. Pal appealed, and in January 2026 the Employment Appeal Tribunal found the original Tribunal failed to properly consider that her endometriosis could amount to a disability and that she may have faced disability discrimination. Accenture told the BBC it could not comment while the matter remains ongoing.

Pal said the lengthy process had changed her life and career, but she hoped the case helps push clearer recognition of endometriosis-related disability protections under the Equality Act 2010.

For employers, this is a warning against treating absence, recovery time or fluctuating symptoms as “performance issues” without properly considering disability status and reasonable adjustments. Getting it wrong can drive costly litigation, reputational damage and a breakdown in trust.

Find more detail about this case here.

In MN v NHS Foundation Trust L, a consultant doctor was investigated under the Maintaining High Professional Standards in the NHS (MHPS). His contract required disciplinary and capability procedures to be applied “consistent” with MHPS. An MHPS appendix stated that, for consultants, the Medical Director must act as case manager.

Despite this, the Trust appointed a senior manager. The doctor argued the MHPS provision was contractually binding and sought an injunction.

The Court of Appeal held that the MHPS provision was incorporated into the contract, so the Medical Director was required to act as case manager. It confirmed that collective agreement terms can be contractually binding where they are clear, certain, workable in practice and sufficiently important, all of which applied here.

Employers cannot assume collective agreements and policies sit outside the contract. Where contracts refer to procedures being applied “consistently” with such frameworks, specific procedural protections may become legally enforceable. Departing from them can expose employers to injunctions and High Court litigation, not just Tribunal claims.

From 2 March 2026, new procedural rules will amend the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Rules 1993. The aim is to reduce delay, streamline hearings and cut the judicial time spent producing lengthy written reasons, so cases move faster and the system runs more efficiently.

These changes also place a greater onus on parties and advisers to act promptly and strategically.

In particular:

  • Parties will need to be alert to short deadlines for requesting written reasons, especially where an appeal may be contemplated.
  • Employers may see earlier judicial involvement, increasing pressure to resolve disputes at an early stage.
  • Claims and responses will need to be clearly and properly pleaded from the outset to avoid rejection.

Key changes

The amendments introduce several practical changes, including:

  • Summary reasons: Judges may give brief oral “summary reasons” instead of full written reasons in suitable cases, speeding up decisions.
  • Written reasons deadlines: Where reasons are oral, parties must usually request written reasons within 14 days, which will also trigger reconsideration and appeal time limits.
  • Early resolution: Tribunals will have wider powers to engage in early dispute resolution and judicial assessment, increasing pressure to settle sooner.
  • Stricter pleadings: Claims and responses can be rejected if they set out no proper grounds.
  • Public register: Only judgments and full written reasons will be published.
  • EAT appeals: Appeals will generally require full written reasons.

Overall, the amendments reflect a continued shift towards efficiency, early resolution and tighter procedural discipline in employment litigation.

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 future-proof your organisation. By covering every angle, we give you the confidence to move forward for long-term success.

0203 667 5400 | hello@weareloch.com