The Loch Lens – July 2025 | Loch Associates Group

In the latest edition of The Loch Lens, we delve into the critical developments and emerging trends that every employer, HR professional, and business leader should have on their radar, including:

Unfair Dismissal and Safeguarding: What Employers Can Learn from Pearson v Greenwood Academies Trust [2023]
EHRC Clarifies its Guidance on Separate-Sex Facilities Following Supreme Court Ruling
ICO Outlines Next Steps Under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025
Employment Relationship with Local Authority Rejected
Immigration & Talent in the UK’s 10-Year Industrial Strategy
Forrest v Amazon Web Services Fairness in Tribunal Procedure Emphasised by the EAT
Early Redundancy Scoring Ruled Lawful
MAC Report Recommends Fairer Family Visa Income Rules
High Court Restrains Vexatious Employment Claims
Early Conciliation Timing Limits Clarified

If you want to stay informed in the areas of HR, employment, commercial, family and immigration law as well as training and mediation, make sure to subscribe to our LinkedIn newsletter to receive expert updates and practical insights each month.

Greenwood Academies Trust fail to convince the Tribunal that institutional failures could be pinned on one employee. Mary-Ann Pearson, a PE teacher with 18 years’ service and a clean record, was awarded over £248,000 after being unfairly dismissed by Greenwood Academies Trust.

The Trust alleged she failed to report concerns about a student who may have been abused. However, the Tribunal found there was no evidence any staff were aware of the issue, pointing instead to wider systemic failings.

The Tribunal ruled the dismissal was both unjustified and procedurally flawed. It noted the employer provided no credible reason why a long-serving teacher, known for raising safeguarding concerns, would suddenly fail to do so.

This case serves as a clear reminder that disciplinary action should never be used to deflect from organisational shortcomings. Employers must ensure that any concerns are investigated fairly and thoroughly, and that decisions, particularly involving experienced staff, are grounded in evidence, context, and due process.

You can read more about this case here.

Following the UK Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers (2025), the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has updated its interim guidance on separate-sex facilities in the workplace.

The clarification, issued on 23 June 2025, aligns the EHRC’s position with existing health and safety regulations. It confirms that employers are not required to provide separate-sex toilets or changing areas if their current setup includes single-occupancy, lockable facilities used by one person at a time, such as unisex toilet cubicles. Where necessary, single-sex facilities must still be provided to meet workplace needs.

Importantly, the EHRC emphasised that this is not a change in policy. Rather, it reflects the legal position confirmed by the Supreme Court that “sex” under the Equality Act refers to biological sex. Employers remain responsible for ensuring facilities are appropriate and sufficient, particularly in the context of showers or changing rooms.

This update does not relax compliance duties; it simply clarifies what legally acceptable provision looks like. Employers should review their current arrangements, update internal policies, and ensure HR teams are equipped to apply and explain the guidance correctly and fairly.

Learn more here.

Following Royal Assent on 19 June 2025, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA 2025) is now law, and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has released initial guidance and a regulatory work plan to support implementation.

The DUAA 2025 introduces several key changes, including more flexibility for using personal data in research, relaxed consent rules for certain cookies, and limited permissions for charity marketing. It also creates a new lawful basis for data processing, recognised legitimate interests, and requires all organisations to establish formal complaints procedures.

The ICO has been granted stronger enforcement powers, including the ability to compel interviews and demand audit reports. A phased rollout is expected over the next 6–9 months, with major guidance due in winter 2025/26.

For businesses, the message is clear: while the new framework offers more flexibility, it also brings new responsibilities. Now is the time to update privacy policies, train relevant teams, and prepare internal systems to align with DUAA 2025.

Read more about this here.

In Scully v Northamptonshire County Council, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) confirmed that a carer working under a direct payment arrangement was not employed by the council funding the care.

Mr Scully provided care for his brother, who received direct payments from the council to manage his own support. Mr Scully argued that the council was his true employer and brought claims for unpaid wages and discrimination. However, the Tribunal found no employment relationship existed between him and the local authority.

Key factors included that payslips named his brother as the employer, care decisions were made within the family, and the council provided no supervision or contractual control. The EAT concluded there was no need to imply a contract where a valid one already existed between Mr Scully and his brother.

This case reinforces that direct payment schemes do not create employment relationships with the funding authority. What matters is who exercises control, issues payment, and manages the employment relationship day to day. If you are a carer or a family with in-house care, make sure you know your legal position on employment and have the right paperwork in place.

The UK’s new Industrial Strategy, published on 23 June 2025, sets out a decade-long plan to drive innovation, productivity, and investment across eight high-growth sectors, including life sciences, AI, green energy, and advanced manufacturing. Crucially, immigration and talent policy are placed at the heart of this economic vision.

Key measures include the creation of a Global Talent Taskforce backed by a £54 million fund, and targeted visa reforms to prioritise roles aligned with strategic growth areas. High-value visa routes, such as Global Talent, Skilled Worker, and Innovator, will be refined to support workforce planning in these sectors, while lower-skilled entry will be restricted to shortage roles directly linked to the strategy.

For employers, this marks a shift in expectations. International recruitment must now be clearly aligned with sector priorities and backed by workforce plans. Failure to do so may limit access to certain visa pathways.

This is a significant change in direction: immigration is no longer a standalone policy, but a key lever for industrial growth. Businesses in priority sectors should act now to align recruitment, visa strategy, and talent planning with the UK’s long-term economic goals.

In Forrest v Amazon Web Services [2025] EAT 81, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned a Tribunal’s decision to strike out claims without issuing an “unless” order, a key procedural safeguard.

Mr Forrest, an AWS employee, brought claims for disability discrimination and whistleblowing, but missed procedural deadlines after his dismissal and while seeking further disclosure. The Tribunal struck out all claims, citing non-compliance.

On appeal, the EAT ruled that the Tribunal acted prematurely. It stressed that unless non-compliance makes a fair trial impossible, Tribunals must consider proportionate steps, such as issuing an “unless” order, before striking out claims. The purpose of the unless order is giving a party one last chance to comply with a deadline before the Tribunal strikes out its claim or defence for failure to comply.

This judgment reinforces the approach of the Tribunal when considering striking out a party’s case for failure to comply with deadlines. Striking out claims should be a last resort, not a first response to missed deadlines.

In Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd, the UK Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal challenging the timing of redundancy scoring, effectively upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision that the process was fair.

Mr Haycocks was selected for redundancy after being assessed, without prior consultation, using a scoring matrix. He argued this pre-consultation evaluation was inherently unfair. While the Employment Tribunal found in ADP’s favour, the Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed. However, the Court of Appeal later ruled that fairness depends on the process as a whole, not just when scoring occurs.

This case confirms that employers may assess staff before consultation begins, provided the overall process is transparent and gives employees a meaningful opportunity to respond on matters which may influence the outcome.

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published a major review of the Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) for family visas, challenging the proposed rise to £38,700 and recommending a more balanced, realistic threshold.

The MAC proposes setting the MIR between £23,000 and £28,000, allowing applicants’ income to count toward the threshold, and removing child-related income top-ups. It also calls for simpler documentation rules, better data transparency, and a clearer framework for future uprating.

These reforms aim to reduce family separation and improve fairness without significantly increasing net migration. The government has yet to confirm which recommendations it will implement, but practical changes to income counting and documentation are likely to bring real improvements for sponsors and their families.