header-logo header-logo

Day one rights: a new chapter?

237021
Robert Hargreaves & Lily Johnston report on the demise of the two-year rule & what this means for employers & advisers
  • The Employment Rights Bill 2024–25 abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection, giving every employee ‘day one rights’.
  • Employers must revise probation, capability and disciplinary procedures so that fairness applies from the first day of employment.
  • Litigation risk will move from eligibility disputes to the quality of process and evidence of reasonableness.

The Employment Rights Bill 2024–25 delivers the most far-reaching change to dismissal law since the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). By removing the two-year qualifying period, it draws every worker within the scope of unfair dismissal protection from day one.

For many, this corrects a long-criticised imbalance between flexibility and fairness. For others, it threatens to blur managerial discretion with judicial oversight. Whatever the view, it will transform how HR teams and employment lawyers approach dismissal decisions.

At present, s 108, ERA 1996 prevents most employees from bringing

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll