Key Employment Cases of 2025 (UK)

Why should I read this?

For employment lawyers, HR practitioners, and leaders, 2025 has been a year of anticipation and change. The government’s ambitious legislative reforms within the Employment Rights Bill have captured much of our focus. Simultaneously, we have also witnessed landmark appeal decisions in the UK courts and emerging cases that offer crucial, practical guidance for employers.

In this briefing, we distil the most significant employment law cases of 2025 an explain what they mean for employers in practice.

What do I need to know?

Topic	What was the case about?	Impact on employers?
Unlawful deductions from wages / holiday pay	For most unlawful deductions claims brought since 1 July 2015 there has been a two-year "backstop" limiting the amounts that can be recovered in Great Britain, but not Northern Ireland. It applies to all wages claims (with some limited exclusions) and was the government’s response to EU-derived holiday pay litigation at that time. In Afshar and others v Addison Lee Limited, an ET decision held that the two-year backstop is ultra vires and of no effect (meaning that, in that case, the claimants could claim for sums going back further than two years).	It is important to note that this was a first instance ET decision only and is not binding on other ETs – the two-year backstop is still law and can be relied upon.  Employers will however want to stay abreast of developments, particularly as the judgment has been appealed and any decision from a higher appeal tribunal/court would be binding. In the meantime, employers should be aware of an increased risk that this line of argument may be raised by claimants in unlawful deductions from wages claims.
Religion and belief discrimination	In Higgs v Farmor’s School the CA considered the dismissal of an employee for reposting gender critical views on social media, finding that  the employee’s dismissal was disproportionate in the circumstances and amounted to direct religion and belief discrimination.	Handling conflicts of belief in the workplace remains a difficult area for employers to navigate and the law is complex; however the CA’s decision provides important guidance for employers to note in this area. Each case will turn on its own facts and employers should take careful advice, noting that it will only be lawful to dismiss employees for manifesting protected beliefs in limited circumstances.
Part-time workers	The CA held that a worker’s part-time status must be the “sole reason” for any less favourable treatment. In Augustine v Data Cars Limited a part-time private hire driver was charged the same weekly circuit fee as a full-time comparator. Dismissing the appeal, the CA held that there was no breach under the PTW Regs as his treatment was not “solely” on the ground he worked part-time. It had been anticipated that the CA might depart from the “sole reason” test; however it did not consider that it was able to do so as it was bound by earlier case law.	The “sole reason” test makes it more difficult for part-time workers to prove less favourable treatment than in other areas of discrimination law. The CA granted permission to appeal to the SC and employers will want to monitor the case closely in anticipation of potential new guidance from the SC on the treatment of part-time workers.
Single-sex facilities and services	In For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers the SC held that the words “sex” “woman” and “man” in the EqA mean biological sex, biological woman and biological man. Following the judgment, the EHRC consulted on updates to its Code of practice for services, public functions and associations (Services Code), which awaits final approval by parliament.  Importantly, the  EHRC’s consultation on its Services Code did not include updates to the EHRC’s Employment Code of Practice, which contains statutory guidance for employers. The EHRC has confirmed that it will update the Employment Code separately and in due course, but has not given any specific timescales.	The decision of the SC has a number of practical implications for employers, including but not limited to the provision of single-sex facilities and services. Employers should take advice on the impact of the SC’s judgment on their policies and practices. Employers should also stay abreast of other developments in this area including the pending outcome of a judicial review challenge to the EHRC’s interim update and emerging case law decisions.
Whistleblowing	In Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council, the CA confirmed that  EAT was correct to hold that an external job applicant (non-NHS) did not fall within the extended definition of 'worker' in s43K ERA - and was therefore unable to pursue a whistleblowing claim.	The case provides helpful clarification that whistleblower protection does not extend to non-NHS job applicants. Whilst whistleblowing protection is expressly extended to applicants for certain NHS roles, this was a policy decision aimed at, for example, protecting patient safety. The CA confirmed that an applicant for a non-NHS job is not in a materially analogous position  to workers, or applicants for posts with NHS employers.
Whistleblowing	The CA in Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd and Barton Turns Developments Ltd v Treadwell considered whether employees can bring whistleblowing detriment claims where the alleged detriment is their dismissal. Under the ERA, employees are protected from dismissal (s.103A) and employees and workers from detriment (s.47B) because they have made a protected disclosure. Whilst s.47B(2) excludes detriment claims where the detriment “amounts to dismissal”, an earlier decision (Osipov) allowed such claims against co-workers, with employers vicariously liable for the co-workers actions unless such employer can show it took all reasonable steps to prevent such actions. Although the CA disagreed with Osipov’s interpretation,  it remained bound by it.	The decision means that employees can pursue claims under s103A (automatic unfair dismissal) and simultaneously claim detriment against a co-worker, also based on that dismissal (s47B). Detriment claims are attractive because they carry a lower burden of proof and allow injury to feelings awards. Employers should review whistleblowing policies and training, as well as promptly and robustly investigate and respond to whistleblowing complaints. This will support employers in evidencing they have taken “all reasonable steps” in defence of vicarious claims.
Industrial action and employee detriments	In the case of Morais & Others v Ryanair DAC, R withdrew discretionary travel benefits from pilots after they participated in industrial action. The pilots argued that compiling the list, to facilitate the withdrawal of the benefits, amounted to a prohibited blacklist under the Blacklisting Regulations. The ET and EAT decided in favour of the pilots, finding that the production of a list by the employer to identify the individuals who had taken strike action, in order to withdraw travel benefits, amounted to blacklisting. The CA dismissed the employer’s appeal (read our March update for further detail).	The decision interpreted the regulations widely and employers should exercise caution when compiling lists of striking workers and consider if they are being compiled for a discriminatory purpose, particularly as the SC refused the employer’s application to appeal. Employers should also note that the government will act to strengthen blacklisting protections with a consultation expected soon, before changes are implemented in 2027.
Employment status and the Agency Workers Regulations	Lutz v Ryanair DAC concerned the status of a pilot, L, whose services were supplied by an intermediary business to work alongside pilots directly employed by R and whose ET claim included holiday pay and less favourable treatment under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR). In its defence, R argued that L was self-employed. An ET held that L was both employed by an intermediary for the purposes of applicable civil aviation working time regulations and an agency worker for the purposes of the AWR. Appeals to the EAT and CA were dismissed and permission to appeal to the SC has been refused.	The case provides further guidance on whether a person working for a number of years is still working “temporarily” under the AWR. The CA held that the line should be drawn between permanent (i.e. indefinite) and finite employment, which may involve a fixed term. Here, L was contracted to work for a five year period and was “temporary” - a reminder that long-term assignments via agencies can still trigger AWR rights.
National minimum wage and travel time	In Revenue & Customs Commissioners v Taylors Services Ltd (Dissolved), poultry workers travelled to farms in minibuses, provided by T. HMRC argued that the travel time, sometimes lasting several hours, should be considered "time work" under the NMW due to the control exercised by the employer and the burdensome nature of the travel. The CA disagreed, acknowledging that while this might appear unjust, it was for the government or Low Pay Commission to address any anomalies in the wording of the regulations which it was bound to apply.	The CA confirmed that travel time does not constitute "time work" unless explicitly treated as such under the NMW regulations. In so doing, it rejected HMRC’s argument that the regulations should be interpreted more broadly to give effect to the social policy purposes underpinning the NMW. This is a useful technical decision to guide employers on the treatment of travel time and confirms the need to apply the regulations without putting “a gloss” on their meaning.
Flexible working and sex discrimination	In December 2025 the EAT is due to hear the appeal in Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Trust (No 2) Foundation Trust. In this case, the ET decided that D’s claim of indirect sex discrimination failed as T’s requirement that nurses work flexibly, including at weekends, to provide 24/7 care on a cost-effective and balanced workload basis, was justified for the purposes of the EqA. The ET found that D could work flexibly, albeit with difficulty, and that had to be weighed up against T’s aims.	It is hoped that the EAT’s decision will help guide the application of employers’ flexible working (FW) policies, given an anticipated increase in requests when government changes to flexible working are implemented (read our tracker for more information). In particular, whether the EAT upholds the ET’s decision that a FW policy should not be applied “too strictly” and that an employer’s needs as a whole “must sometimes prevail”.
Worker status	In Ter-Berg v Malde and another the EAT criticised an ET’s approach to deciding employment and worker status, stating that where both issues are relevant, they should generally be considered at the same time (not at separate hearings). It concluded that the personal-service element of the definition of a worker was met on the facts and remitted the case to a new ET to decide the outstanding element of the statutory test.	The EAT gave guidance on deciding worker and employment status which will assist employers. For example, it commented on the similarities and differences between the two tests, including of control,  personal service and the parties’ intentions, in the context of worker status having a lower “pass mark”.

 

Key:

CA – Court of Appeal

EAT– Employment Appeal Tribunal

EHRC – Equality and Human Rights Commission

ERA – Employment Rights Act 1996

EqA – Equality Act 2010

ET – Employment Tribunal

NMW – National Minimum Wage

HMRC – Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

PTW Regs - Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000

SC – Supreme Court

NB. Employment law is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and the issues set out above may not all apply in NI. For NI specific advice contact our Belfast office.