What's New In Employment Law: April 2026

Each month we pull together the employment law updates that matter most to HR professionals and in-house lawyers, in plain English. In this article you’ll find a round-up of key cases, new legislation and other developments to help you stay ahead.

Please note: this update is correct as at 31 March 2026. Employment law moves quickly and we’ll share further developments next month.

Case updates

This month we look at Ngole v Touchstone Leeds, where the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether the employer turned a job applicant down because of his religious beliefs or because of the way he expressed them. We cover Bibescu v Clare Jenner Ltd t/a Jenner’s, which looked at whether disclosures could be protected where the employee was acting in her own interests in making them. Did a mishandled appeal make a capability dismissal unfair? This was the question the EAT had to answer in Milrine v DHL Services Ltd. Finally, in The Attorney General v Messi the issue was whether a restriction of proceedings order should be made against a vexatious litigant.

Ngole v Touchstone Leeds

Mr Ngole (a Christian social worker) applied to Touchstone, a mental health charity committed to equality, diversity and inclusion, for a role as a discharge mental health support worker. Around a third of the workforce and 12% of service users were from the LGBTQI+ community. After an interview, Mr Ngole was offered the job subject to references. During background checks Touchstone found various social media posts he had made, including a statement that same sex marriage was a sin. It withdrew the conditional offer due to concerns about whether he shared its values. Following a second interview, Touchstone confirmed the withdrawal. Mr Ngole brought claims for direct and indirect religion or belief discrimination and harassment. The employment tribunal (ET) upheld the direct discrimination claim relating to the withdrawal of the job offer but rejected the other claims. Mr Ngole appealed.

The EAT upheld the appeal on direct discrimination and sent the case back to the same ET to reconsider. It found the ET had not properly analysed whether Touchstone’s reasons for not recruiting Mr Ngole were objections to his belief or the way he manifested it. If the reason was manifestation, the ET had to consider whether there was something objectionable in that manifestation. Treatment because of a belief can't be justified, whereas treatment because of an objectionable manifestation may be capable of justification. The EAT dismissed the remainder of the appeal.

Employers should separate what someone believes from how they express it, especially if what they say causes concern. They need to keep a clear written record of why a decision was made, and be ready to show that less drastic options were considered before withdrawing a job offer or taking any other negative step because of what was said or done.

Bibescu v Clare Jenner Ltd t/a Jenner's

Ms Bibescu was employed as an accountant by Jenner's from November 2018 until she was dismissed in June 2020. From August 2019 onwards, Ms Jenner raised concerns about the quality of Ms Bibescu's work and arranged for a sub-contractor, Mr Grimes, to peer-review her work due to numerous mistakes. Ms Bibescu became unhappy about Mr Grimes reviewing her work. She investigated him and discovered that he had previously been disqualified from being a company director and was not a member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. She raised these matters with Ms Jenner at a meeting. Three days later she was dismissed for poor performance and her inability to work with Mr Grimes. She brought claims for automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing and whistleblowing detriment. (She lacked sufficient service to bring a claim for ordinary unfair dismissal.) The ET dismissed her automatic unfair dismissal claim, finding that the principal reason for dismissal was her poor performance and her inability to work with Mr Grimes. The ET concluded that Ms Bibescu had made disclosures but she hadn't done so in the public interest so they weren't protected. Ms Bibescu appealed.

The EAT upheld the ET's decision in relation to the automatic unfair dismissal, holding that the finding about the reason for dismissal was rational and plainly open to the ET on the evidence. However, the EAT found that the ET had erred in law in relation to the detriment claim by failing to make necessary findings about Ms Bibescu's state of mind and erroneously substituting its own view on reasonable belief. It should have decided whether Ms Bibescu genuinely believed her disclosures were in the public interest and if so, whether that belief was reasonable, rather than focusing on her motives. The detriment complaint was remitted to a different ET to decide whether the disclosures were protected and whether Ms Bibescu had been subjected to a detriment as a result of making them.

Even if a worker is motivated by self-interest, they can still qualify for whistleblower protection if they have a reasonable belief that the disclosure is in the public interest. However, performance-related dismissals can succeed even where whistleblowing allegations are raised provided there's robust evidence documenting genuine performance concerns.

Milrine v DHL Services Ltd

Mr Milrine, who was an HGV driver, went off sick with anxiety, depression and vertigo. He reported his feelings of dizziness to the DVLA and they revoked his HGV licence for a year. At a meeting with DHL, he accepted there was nothing more they could do for him and said he wanted to return to work but felt he would be a liability in his current condition. His manager concluded there was no reasonable prospect of him returning to driving duties or being fit to perform alternative duties within a reasonable timescale, and dismissed him with notice. At that point, he had been off sick for more than two years. Mr Milrine appealed against his dismissal. The internal appeal was intended to be a rehearing but was flawed. The nominated appeal manager declined to hear the appeal, his replacement didn't attend the rescheduled hearing, and HR then placed the onus on Mr Milrine to choose the appeal manager and propose dates, without confirming this to him in writing. The internal appeal never took place. Mr Milrine brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The ET dismissed his claim, criticising the procedural failings at the appeal stage but holding that the dismissal was fair since Mr Milrine had been offered an appeal but didn't pursue it. He appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal, holding that the ET failed to apply the principle that a defective appeal process may render a dismissal unfair. DHL's approach to the appeal took its overall decision to dismiss outside the band of approaches open to a reasonable employer. The EAT concluded that the only proper conclusion was that the dismissal was unfair.

When considering whether an employer has acted reasonably, the ET must consider the process as a whole, including any internal appeal. A failure by an employer to offer an appeal, or an appeal that is defective, may make a dismissal unfair that would otherwise have been fair. This case is a reminder that employers must manage appeal processes just as carefully as initial dismissal procedures.

The Attorney General v Messi

Since 2017 Ms Messi had issued over 50 ET claims against different employers, typically arising from unsuccessful job applications or short-lived engagements. Her allegations commonly included discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and unpaid wages. None of her claims had succeeded and there was no evidence that any had settled. Ms Messi's claims had been struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, dismissed following non-attendance or withdrawn. She had also repeatedly failed to comply with directions, sought adjournments without evidence, avoided attending hearings and made unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty or fabrication against employers and their representatives. She had brought a number of applications for interim relief in whistleblowing proceedings, all unsuccessful, often repeating defects previously explained to her. In one case, the ET had ordered her to pay costs of £15,000. The Attorney General applied for a restriction of proceedings order (RPO) against her.

The EAT found that the conditions for making an RPO were clearly satisfied. Ms Messi had instituted vexatious proceedings and made vexatious applications, habitually and persistently, and without any reasonable ground. The EAT granted an indefinite RPO, meaning that Ms Messi needs permission to start proceedings in the ET or EAT, continue existing proceedings or make an application. However, the EAT didn't restrict her from acting as a representative or Mackenzie friend for another person, as it didn't have jurisdiction to make such an order.

Employers facing multiple claims from the same person showing similar patterns of conduct should keep detailed records of the proceedings and consider whether the Attorney General's Office could be asked to make an application for an RPO. Such orders are only made by the EAT on application by the Attorney General where a person has habitually and persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings or made vexatious applications. This case illustrates the circumstances in which serial ET claimants may be subject to such orders. The decision provides guidance for employers facing repeat claims from the same individual.

Legislation updates

Employment Rights Act 2025

Developments under the Employment Rights Act 2025 (the Act) continue at pace. Here's a summary of what's happened since our last article.

The Minister for Women and Equalities launched gender pay gap and menopause action plans on 4 March, ahead of International Women's Day 2026. The Government published guidance for employers on creating an action plan and a list of actions they can take, split into five topics. From April employers with 250 or more employees will have the option to produce and publish a voluntary action plan alongside their gender pay gap data. Additional guidance will be published in April.

The DBT published an updated Code of Practice on industrial action ballots and notice to employers on 5 March. It reflects the changes made by the Act and supersedes the 2017 version: Industrial action ballots and notice to employers: code of practice - GOV.UK

The DBT also published an updated Code of Practice on picketing on 5 March to reflect the changes made by the Act. It replaces the 2024 version: Picketing: code of practice - GOV.UK

Several measures under the Act will come into force in April. They include:

• The trade union levy, which is paid by unions and employer associations to the Certification Officer, will be repealed (1 April)
• Simplifying the process for trade union recognition: the 40% support threshold for recognition ballots will be removed, together with the requirement for unions to demonstrate majority support (6 April)
• Statutory sick pay will be payable from day one of sickness and the requirement to earn above the lower earnings limit will be removed (6 April)
• The qualifying periods for paternity and unpaid parental leave will be repealed, bereaved fathers and partners will be able to take up to 52 weeks of paternity leave, and employees will be able to take paternity leave after a period of shared parental leave (6 April)
• Voluntary equality action plans will be introduced for employers with 250 or more employees – see above (6 April)
• Reporting sexual harassment in the workplace will become a qualifying disclosure (6 April)
• The maximum period of the protective award (in relation to collective consultation) will double to 180 days (6 April)
• Employers will have to keep written records demonstrating compliance with holiday entitlements and pay, which must be retained for six years (6 April)
• The Fair Work Agency will be established (7 April)

National minimum wage

Increases in the national minimum wage take effect on 1 April. The national living wage (21+) will rise to £12.71 per hour, the 18-20 year old rate will be £10.85 per hour and the hourly rate for 16-17 year olds and apprentices will be £8.00 per hour.

Employment tribunal limits

The cap on a week's pay – for calculating the basic award for unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy payments – will increase to £751 in April. The maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal will be the lower of £123,543 and 52 weeks' actual gross pay. The new limits apply where the effective date of termination is on or after 6 April.

Statutory sick pay and statutory family payments

The annual increases in various benefits take place in early April. Statutory sick pay will be £123.25 per week from 6 April and statutory maternity pay will increase to £194.32 per week from 5 April. The other statutory family payments (paternity, adoption, shared parental, parental bereavement and neonatal care pay) will rise to £194.32 per week from 6 April.

Other developments

The Vento bands (compensation for injury to feelings in discrimination cases) will increase in respect of claims presented on or after 6 April. The lower band (for less serious cases) will be £1,300 to £12,600. See our employment law key facts for details of all the current rates and figures.

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary have published a collection of 18 guidance videos written and produced by employment judges to assist parties in bringing and defending ET claims. They explain different parts of the ET procedure and what might happen at a hearing, as well as describing some of the legal principles.

Acas has published the results of a survey on which changes in the Act will have the biggest impact on employers and workers. The new right to sick pay from day one of illness came top, followed by protection from unfair dismissal from six months of employment. Acas commissioned YouGov to carry out the survey, which took place in February.

The DBT has responded to the recommendations made by the House of Lords Home-based Working Select Committee in their report on hybrid and remote working. The Government stated that it supports all forms of flexible working and shares the Select Committee's view that home-based working can play an important role in supporting productivity, wellbeing and labour market participation. It's still considering a right to switch off: Government response to the Home-Based Working Select Committee report - GOV.UK

The Government has published its response to the call for evidence on unpaid internships and internships paid below the national minimum wage, which took place last year. It has set out the steps it intends to take, which will include expanding its guidance on the national minimum wage, strengthening enforcement via the existing channels and the new Fair Work Agency, and encouraging individuals to report where work trials are being misused.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.