header-logo header-logo

10 October 2025 / Ian Smith
Issue: 8134 / Categories: Features , Employment , Discrimination , Tribunals , Limitation
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 10 October 2025

231935
Employment tribunal litigation is an adversarial business: Ian Smith spars with the importance of proper pleadings, time limits in discrimination cases & novel anonymity claims
  • Recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decisions highlight procedural issues in employment litigation, including time limits in discrimination claims, the importance of properly pleading a case, and the rules around anonymity orders.
  • Key rulings clarified the distinction between continuing acts vs one-off events, reinforced the claimant’s responsibility to plead their case, and extended the scope of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to tribunal proceedings.

One aspect of the recent case law on employment law, fully reflected in this month’s brief, is the preponderance of cases on matters of procedure. Cases on substance of course crop up, but are often just examples of well-established rules or guidelines, some going back anything up to 40 years ago.

While it is important not to give these an importance that they do not merit by reporting them—if only to retain an element of sanity for

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll