Employment & Immigration Law – what’s on the horizon?

Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1466

Claims: Whether employees dismissed for whistleblowing can bring a whistleblowing detriment claim where the alleged detriment is the dismissal itself, as well as an automatic unfair dismissal claim.

Background: The joined appeals in Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd and Barton Turns Developments Ltd v Treadwell concern employees who alleged that they had been dismissed because they had made protected disclosures. They sought to bring both a whistleblowing detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996 and an automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996, relying on Timis v Osipov to pursue dismissal-related detriment claims through the co-worker and employer vicarious liability route.

Decision: The Court of Appeal held that, although it disagreed with the reasoning in Osipov, it was bound by that decision and therefore employees may, for now, bring whistleblowing detriment claims where the alleged detriment is dismissal. The Court confirmed that such claims may proceed against employers on a vicarious liability basis for the acts of co-workers involved in the dismissal decision. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted, and the Supreme Court considered on 21 May 2026 whether section 47B(2) prevents such claims and whether Osipov was correctly decided. 

Takeaway: This will be a significant decision for employers, as claimants can currently pursue twin track whistleblowing claims arising from the same dismissal, even though there is considerable debate on whether this was ever the purpose of the legislation. The detriment route is important because it may offer a lower causation threshold and access to injury to feelings compensation. Employers should monitor the Supreme Court decision once it is handed down to see if claims can still be defended on these twin tracks, and in the meantime review whistleblowing and dismissal processes, train managers involved in dismissal decisions and ensure decision-making is carefully documented.

Equity v Talent Systems Europe Ltd (t/a Spotlight) [2025] EWHC 2254 (KB)

Claims: Ruling of an employment agency under the Employment Agencies Act 1973.

Background: Spotlight has operated as a talent directory at the heart of the UK entertainment industry for nearly a century, initially publishing hard copy directories of entertainment performers and now operating an online directory where performers publish information about themselves (headshots, career highlights, skills, etc) which can be accessed by casting directors. Despite a long and previously positive relationship with the trade union Equity, in summer 2024, Equity and members of its counsel brought proceedings claiming that Spotlight operated as an employment agency under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, on the basis that Spotlight was in the business of providing services for the purpose of finding persons employment with employers or supplying employers with persons for employment by them. Had this claim succeeded, it would have resulted in commercial and regulatory implications for Spotlight’s business, despite the fact that it had operated in a consistent, unchallenged and reputable way for almost 100 years.

Decision: The High Court overwhelmingly found in Spotlight’s favour, with Equity’s claim being dismissed on all fronts. The judge ruled that Spotlight’s directory is “a number of steps away from a service for the purpose of finding persons employment” and instead serves as a marketing tool for performers to promote themselves to casting directors and other hirers. The case is now due to float in the Court of Appeal on 24 or 25 November 2026.

Takeaway: The case confirms that a platform which enables performers to market themselves to potential hirers does not constitute an employment agency simply because it facilitates connections between talent and casting directors. This is a significant result for SaaS platforms and talent directories operating in the entertainment industry, though the appeal means the position is not yet finally settled.

Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd [2026] EAT 12

Claims: Unfair dismissal and disability discrimination under a progression-based performance model.

Background: Ms Pal was employed by Accenture as a manager for approximately ten years. Accenture operates an “up or elsewhere” model, under which employees who do not demonstrate readiness for promotion within a reasonable timeframe are deemed to be underperforming. Following a diagnosis of endometriosis, surgery, and two periods of sickness absence, Ms Pal received two consecutive “not progressing” ratings and was dismissed in July 2019 for performance reasons. The Employment Tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair because Accenture breached its own disciplinary and appeals policy (i.e. failing to conduct an independent investigation and using previously involved managers as decision-makers) but nonetheless applied a 100% Polkey reduction and dismissed the disability discrimination claim.

Decision: The EAT allowed the appeal on all three grounds:

1. The ET applied an incorrect counterfactual in its Polkey analysis – rather than asking what this employer would have done had it complied with its own policy, it hypothesised that the employer would have introduced a new policy for which there was no evidence.
2. The EAT held that dismissal under an “up or elsewhere” model may not amount to the potentially fair reason of “capability”, because capability must be assessed by reference to the work the employee is contractually employed to do, not work they would do if promoted; it might instead constitute “some other substantial reason”.
3. The ET’s analysis of whether the claimant was a disabled person was wholly inadequate, failing to engage properly with the medical evidence, the likelihood of recurrence, and the effect of the condition absent treatment. All matters were remitted to a differently constituted ET.

Takeaway: This case is significant for employers operating progression-based or “up or elsewhere” performance models. It clarifies that such models may not straightforwardly give rise to a “capability” reason for dismissal and highlights the importance of ensuring that dismissal procedures align with written policies. Employers should also take care to conduct a thorough and properly evidenced assessment of disability – particularly where conditions such as endometriosis involve recurring symptoms and surgical treatment – rather than relying on generalised credibility findings to dismiss an employee’s evidence. It is understood that an application has been made for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, though the grounds remain unclear at this stage.

Zen Internet Ltd v Mr Paul Stobart [2025] EAT 153

Claims: Unfair dismissal.

Background: Mr Stobart, the CEO of Zen Internet Ltd, was dismissed. The Employment Tribunal found that Zen had a potentially fair reason for dismissal – namely capability arising from poor performance – but that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because Zen had failed to follow a fair process. The ET also made a Polkey finding that Mr Stobart would have been fairly dismissed by no later than 31 May 2023 had a fair procedure been followed.

Decision: The EAT dismissed Zen’s appeal against the finding of unfair dismissal, holding that the ET had not imposed an absolute procedural checklist for capability dismissals and had directed itself correctly on the law. However, the EAT allowed the appeal in part on the Polkey assessment: the ET had wrongly confined its analysis to the period from 17 March 2023 onwards and failed adequately to explain why a fair dismissal would have occurred no later than 31 May 2023. That issue was remitted to the ET for reconsideration. The Court of Appeal has since granted permission to appeal, with the hearing expected to look at whether it was fair to dismiss Mr Stobart for incapability. Permission was granted because the EAT’s ruling raised a new legal point about the Polkey assessment: namely, that tribunals do not have to look forward only from a fixed date (such as the date of dismissal or the date notice was given) when predicting what would probably have happened if the employer had acted fairly, but they may also take into account what happened after the unfair treatment itself took place.

Takeaway: The case confirms that while there is no rigid procedural checklist that must be followed in every capability dismissal, particularly at senior executive level, employers must still demonstrate a fair process. On remedy, tribunals must provide clear reasoning for the date by which they find a fair dismissal would have occurred when conducting a Polkey analysis and must not artificially restrict the evidential window when making that assessment.

As part of the Migration Advisory Committee’s self-commissioned review to assess how best the immigration system could be used to attract top talent to the UK, it launched a call for evidence on the Global Talent and Innovator Founder visa routes.

Deadline to respond: Consultation closed May 2026

Find out more here.

The government sought views on introducing a digital ID system. The system would enable secure access to public services and digitalise Right to Work checks. It would be free, optional, and accessible via smartphone or tablet. The government would like for digital ID to become central to the UK’s right to work regime although it will remain optional and access to public services will not be made dependent on having digital ID.

Deadline to respond: Consultation closed May 2026

Find out more here.

The Home Office’s draft revised Code of Practice on right to work checks makes three notable changes:

1. It intends to extend coverage to workers, individual sub-contractors, gig economy and platform workers in line with the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.
2. It requires employers to accommodate digital verification failures so individuals are not penalised.
3. It reinforces that checks must be applied consistently, with no mandatory digital route save for eVisa holders.

Deadline to respond: Consultation closed April 2026

Find out more here.