Employment law changes in April 2026
April 2026 brings a set of employment law changes that materially affect how employers manage risk across the employment lifecycle, particularly at the point of hire and during early employment. Several statutory rights now apply from day one, including Statutory Sick Pay, paternity leave and unpaid parental leave. This removes the previous buffer created by qualifying periods and increases the likelihood that absence, family leave and workplace concerns engage statutory protections from the outset.
Alongside these changes, statutory rates and tribunal compensation limits have increased, raising both payroll costs and potential liability in disputes. The cap on a week’s pay and the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal have both risen, directly affecting the financial exposure associated with claims. At the same time, the maximum protective award for failures in collective redundancy consultation has doubled to 180 days’ pay per affected employee.
The practical effect is a shift in where legal risk sits. Issues that were previously managed informally during probation are now more likely to fall within formal statutory frameworks, with greater financial consequences where processes are not followed correctly. Employers should review onboarding procedures, absence management and documentation practices to reflect this earlier risk profile.
Whistleblowing dismissal
Laurels Family Assessment v Kay
Ms Kay was employed as a family support worker in a care setting working with vulnerable service users. She raised concerns that she raised concerns about a colleague attending work while under the effects of recreational drug use. She said she reported this internally to her manager and later repeated the concern to an external visitor responsible for safeguarding reporting to Ofsted.
On the same day as the external disclosure, Ms Kay was called into a meeting, without prior notice that it would be a disciplinary hearing, and was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. The employer relied on issues including medication recording errors and other conduct concerns.
Ms Kay brought a claim for automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, contending that the real reason for her dismissal was that she had made protected disclosures.
The Employment Tribunal, by a majority of the lay members, found in her favour. It concluded that she had made protected disclosures and that the principal reason for her dismissal was those disclosures rather than the conduct issues relied upon by the employer.
The employer appealed on the basis that the tribunal’s findings were perverse and that it had failed properly to consider the significance of the medication recording issue as an alternative reason for dismissal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It reiterated that perversity is a high threshold and that an appellate court will not interfere where there is evidence capable of supporting the tribunal’s findings. The tribunal had engaged with the conduct allegations and was entitled to conclude that those matters had previously been treated as a training issue rather than gross misconduct. It had also given adequate reasons for finding that whistleblowing was the operative reason for dismissal.
The majority decision was therefore upheld.
Employer takeaways
This decision illustrates the evidential challenge employers face when defending whistleblowing dismissal claims. Once a protected disclosure is established, the tribunal’s focus shifts to identifying the real reason for the dismissal. Where there is competing evidence, the tribunal is entitled to prefer one account over another provided it explains why.
The case also highlights the limited scope of appellate challenge. Arguments that a tribunal reached the wrong conclusion will not succeed unless the decision is one that no reasonable tribunal could have reached. Where findings are supported by evidence, even if finely balanced, they are unlikely to be disturbed on appeal.
From a practical perspective, the handling of earlier conduct issues is critical. If concerns have previously been treated as minor or addressed through training, it becomes difficult to rely on those same issues later as justification for summary dismissal. Tribunals will examine how concerns were characterised at the time, not how they are presented after the event.
The timing of dismissal remains a key risk indicator. Where disciplinary action follows closely after a protected disclosure, employers should expect heightened scrutiny. Clear, contemporaneous documentation explaining the decision-making process is essential.
Finally, the case reinforces that whistleblowing protection extends beyond the initial disclosure. The way an employer responds, including how it conducts disciplinary and appeal processes, may itself be relevant to the overall assessment of whether the treatment was linked to the disclosure.
Judicial conduct & apparent bias
Matovu v The Chambers of Mr Martin Porter KC (EAT 2026)
Mr Matovu, a barrister and former member of 2 Temple Gardens, brought claims arising from his expulsion from chambers in 2019, including allegations of victimisation linked to prior complaints of race discrimination. As part of those proceedings, he made applications at a preliminary hearing to amend his particulars of claim to include additional protected acts and to obtain further information relating to an allegation of bad faith advanced by the Respondents.
The Respondents did not oppose the proposed amendments. Despite this, the Employment Judge refused the amendment application and also refused the request for further information. In doing so, the Judge relied on concerns that the amendments would expand the scope of the case and require additional evidential inquiry, points that had not been advanced by the Respondents. The Judge also imposed conditions on an amendment that had not been sought by either party and subjected the Claimant to critical questioning on matters that had not been put in issue.
Mr Matovu appealed on grounds including perversity and apparent bias. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal.
On perversity, the EAT held that the Judge had reached conclusions on bases that were neither argued by the Respondents nor consistent with his own observations during the hearing. The refusal of the amendment and the request for further information could not be sustained on the reasoning given.
On apparent bias, the EAT applied the established test of whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. While no single aspect of the Judge’s conduct was determinative, the cumulative effect was decisive. The combination of extensive intervention in an unopposed application, criticism of the Claimant on points not advanced by the Respondents and decisions grounded in reasoning not argued by either party created that real possibility.
The appeal was allowed on both grounds, and the Employment Judge was barred from further involvement in the proceedings.
Employer takeaways
This decision sits outside the usual employer conduct framework but remains relevant for organisations involved in tribunal litigation. It highlights how closely appellate courts will scrutinise the fairness of case management decisions, particularly where those decisions affect the ability of a party to advance its case.
For employers, the practical point is that tribunal proceedings are not insulated from challenge at interlocutory stage. Where a judge introduces reasoning that has not been advanced by the parties, or appears to take an active role in shaping the issues beyond what is required, there may be grounds to challenge the decision.
The case also reinforces the importance of procedural balance. Even robust case management should remain anchored in the arguments put forward by the parties. Where a decision-maker appears to go beyond that, especially in a way that disadvantages one side, the risk shifts from ordinary case management into questions of fairness and potential bias.
From a litigation strategy perspective, employers should remain alert to procedural irregularities during hearings. Where concerns arise, these should be identified and recorded promptly. While appeals on bias are fact-sensitive and not lightly made, this case shows that cumulative conduct, rather than any single misstep, can be sufficient to meet the threshold.
Finally, the decision is a reminder that tribunal process is itself subject to legal standards. Outcomes are not assessed solely by reference to substantive claims, but also by whether the route taken to reach them is fair and impartial.
Need assistance?
If you have a question about employment case law and the impact of tribunal and court decisions on your business, we can help. Working closely with our specialist human resource colleagues, we offer a holistic advisory and support service for employers encompassing both the legal and people risks of workforce management. Speak to our experts today for advice.
