header-logo header-logo

14 November 2025 / Ian Smith
Issue: 8139 / Categories: Features , Employment , Tribunals , Disciplinary&grievance procedures
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 14 November 2025

235682
Out with the old, in with the new: Ian Smith praises a practical approach to early conciliation, plus runs through whistleblowing detriment & future loss
  • The Court of Appeal has confirmed that an ACAS early conciliation certificate is a jurisdictional requirement for certain claims, though tribunals may still allow amendments without a fresh certificate—reinforcing a practical, non-technical approach.
  • The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that the Jhuti principle (regarding hidden motives in dismissals) does not extend to whistleblowing detriment cases, protecting innocent managers from unintended liability.
  • Recent cases emphasise that tribunals must base fairness strictly on the established reason for dismissal, and must properly assess future loss in compensation even amid uncertainty.

It is a mercy that the approach of the tribunals and courts to the present system of ACAS early conciliation (EC) has been one emphasising its practical working and avoiding technical interpretations and requirements that could frustrate its overall aim. This is in contrast to the old and notorious ‘standard procedures’ of the early noughties

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