Employment Law Alert UK – June 2026

AI

High Court issues public admonishment over AI-generated misleading submissions in block transfer application.

The High Court found that solicitors at Pinsent Masons LLP submitted misleading letters to the court in support of a block transfer application (for removing an insolvency practitioner from office), after relying on artificial intelligence (AI) which generated a fictitious legal provision. Solicitors failed to check the accuracy of AI-generated content, resulting in significant public embarrassment and referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The case arose from a block transfer application to replace an outgoing insolvency office-holder. The court became concerned after Pinsent Masons submitted two letters which purported to quote a non-existent provision from the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, claiming an express power for the court to grant release to a liquidator. The error originated from a junior solicitor’s use of AI to draft the letters, with the AI “hallucinating” the legal text. The supervising solicitors failed to check the accuracy of the AI-generated content, and the subsequent explanation to the court “appeared to be untruthful” (which is perhaps not surprising given that “AI was again allowed, at least, to muddy the waters”). The High Court held that all solicitors involved had a duty to ensure the accuracy of submissions and not to mislead the court, regardless of whether AI was used: “Assuming that LA did not check the text of the rule, I consider this omission inexcusable”. The judgment emphasised that legal professionals cannot outsource legal research or reasoning to AI without proper verification, and that misleading the court even unintentionally undermines the administration of justice. The incident resulted in a public admonishment of the firm and the solicitors involved; the junior solicitor’s conduct was described as “very troubling”. The case has also been referred to the SRA for further investigation and to consider an appropriate sanction. The judgment serves as a warning about the risks of uncritical reliance on AI in legal practice and the paramount importance of professional standards and oversight. Further determinations from the SRA are awaited. Anthony Malcolm Cork & Anor v Mark Smith EWHC 1199 (Ch)

As legal professionals are increasingly facing the challenge of maximising the potential of AI whilst mitigating the risks associated with its use, the Law Society has published a response to the Civil Justice Council’s consultation on the use of AI for preparing court documents. The response emphasises the urgent need for short-term guiding principles from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), together with HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) guidance. In the longer term the Law Society is in favour of amending the CPR rules to reflect the use of AI, to include clear transparency obligations around the use of AI at different stages of the litigation process.

DE&I

Tribunal finds indirect sex discrimination and harassment in NHS England’s single-sex facilities policy.

The ET has upheld the Claimant’s claims of indirect sex discrimination and harassment related to NHS England’s policy of permitting trans women to use female-only facilities, finding the policy was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Claimant, a Senior Programme Manager, brought claims of indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion, belief, and disability, and harassment on the grounds of sex and gender-critical belief, after NHS England’s policy allowed trans women to access female-only toilets and changing facilities. The Claimant, who is Muslim and has PTSD related to male sexual violence, argued the policy put women, Muslim women, and women with similar disabilities at a particular disadvantage. Interestingly, the key ground of contention in this case was whether the disadvantage could be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Tribunal found that while NHS England’s aims were legitimate, the policy was not a proportionate means of achieving them, as less discriminatory alternatives were available, which could achieve the same aim. The Tribunal also found that the Respondent’s policy amounted to harassment by creating an intimidating and offensive environment for the Claimant, particularly given her gender critical beliefs and personal circumstances. The judgment underscores the need for employers to carefully balance competing rights when it comes to their policies on single-sex facilities and to critically assess their ability to justify their position and balance the interests of different groups. LS v NHS England.

Updated Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations laid before Parliament.

On 21 May 2026, the Minister for Women and Equalities laid the updated Code of Practice before Parliament. Although the employment landscape is not the focus of the Code, there are still valuable points for employers to consider. The Code clarifies that if a service provider allows trans people to use services intended for the opposite sex, it can no longer be defined as single-sex provision under the Equality Act. However, it also advised service providers to carefully consider whether excluding trans people is proportionate or whether any less intrusive measures are possible. The updated Code will be considered by Parliament for 40 days. If it is not objected to, the government will then confirm an implementation date and make a commencement order.

Gender pay gap reporting guidance updated further to For Women Scotland.

The government’s statutory gender pay gap reporting guidance has been updated. Specifically, the sections on preparing data and making calculations have been updated to clarify that gender pay gap reporting should be done based on employees’ biological sex. It is anticipated that employers will generally have data available from HR or payroll systems but if this data is not available, employers should find a proportionate and sensitive way of confirming or updating their records.

EAT remits religion or belief discrimination claims for reconsideration given legal errors.

The EAT held that the ET erred in law in its approach to the burden of proof and analysis, and remitted claims of direct religion or belief discrimination and harassment for redetermination. The Claimant, a non-Catholic and Head of Finance at the Clifton Diocese, was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct following her return from adoption leave and a request for flexible working. She claimed her dismissal and related disciplinary actions were motivated by discrimination due to her lack of Catholic faith, as well as her request for flexible working. The Tribunal found in her favour on unfair and wrongful dismissal (finding her treatment “appalling”), and also upheld claims of direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of religion or belief. On appeal, the EAT found that the Tribunal had wrongly applied a “blanket” approach to the burden of proof, failed to analyse each alleged act of discrimination separately, and improperly relied on the conduct of individuals not directly responsible for the discriminatory acts. The EAT counselled that ETs should “guard against the risk that the application of the burden of proof provisions distracts from analysing complaints of discrimination logically” whilst also providing a series of helpful “common-sense questions” as a “helpful sense check” which can be found at paragraph 96 of the judgment. The claims of direct discrimination and harassment were remitted to the same Tribunal for reconsideration, with guidance to avoid making assumptions about religious views without a proper evidential basis. The findings of unfair and wrongful dismissal were not challenged. Clifton Diocese v Miss Janet Parker EAT 68

EAT overturns findings of direct discrimination and race discrimination in disciplinary case.

The EAT has held that the ET erred in upholding complaints of direct discrimination, having wrongly found that the Claimant’s denial of systemic racism was a manifestation of a belief in equal treatment for all races. The Claimant, a white British emergency ambulance crew member, was disciplined and given a final written warning by the Respondent following incidents involving a colleague and comments made about the concept of systemic racism. The ET (by a majority) found that the disciplinary actions taken against the Claimant amounted to direct discrimination because of his belief (specifically, his rejection of systemic racism as a manifestation of his broader belief in equal treatment) and, in one instance, direct race discrimination. However, the EAT held that the ET had erred in law by incorrectly treating the Claimant’s rejection of systemic racism as a manifestation of his protected belief, and by failing to properly analyse the reasons for the employer’s actions and the evidence for race discrimination. The EAT quashed the findings of discrimination and substituted a decision dismissing all such complaints. London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Ricky Garrett.

Equal pay

Court of Appeal upholds Tribunal’s approach to equal value claims in long-standing Tesco equal pay litigation.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed all but one of Tesco’s appeals, confirming that the ET was entitled to rely primarily on Tesco’s detailed training documents to determine the content and demands of jobs in equal value claims, provided this was open to challenge by cogent evidence. This appeal arises in the context of mass equal pay claims brought by female store workers, comparing their roles to higher-paid male distribution centre workers. The Tribunal, after a lengthy hearing, focused on Tesco’s detailed training manuals rather than witness evidence about day-to-day tasks. Tesco argued this was legally flawed and that more weight should be given to actual practice and agreed facts. The Court disagreed, finding that, in highly standardised and regulated contexts, training documents can be the best evidence of job requirements, provided that parties have the potential to displace this with cogent evidence. Tesco Stores Limited v K Element & Ors EWCA Civ 580

Whistleblowing

EAT dismisses whistleblowing appeal finding general assertions were not sufficient for protected disclosure.

The EAT dismissed the Claimant’s appeal, holding that her general assertion about health and safety risks from missing contracts did not amount to a qualifying protected disclosure under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Claimant, a National Sales Manager, was dismissed for poor performance and claimed automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for making protected disclosures. The Tribunal found she had not made the first alleged disclosure, and that the second and third did not qualify for protection. On appeal, she challenged only the finding regarding the third disclosure, which related to missing contracts with Dispensing Appliance Contractors, which, she alleged, put the health and safety of end-users at risk. The EAT found that her disclosure was merely a general assertion, lacking the specificity and factual content required for whistleblowing protection. The Tribunal was entitled to find that any belief she held about a link between missing contracts and health and safety was not reasonable given her role and knowledge. The judgment reinforces that protected disclosures must contain specific information and a reasonable belief in the alleged wrongdoing, not just broad or unsupported concerns. Mrs L Capeling v TFX Group Ltd EAT 57

Employment Rights Act 2025

Government publishes implementing regulations to effect unfair dismissal changes.

On 1 June 2026, the government published The Employment Rights Act 2025 (Commencement No. 4 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2026 which give effect to the changes to the unfair dismissal cap and reduction of qualifying service. The regulations confirm that the reduction of the qualifying period to six months and the removal of the cap on compensation will apply to any case where the effective date of termination falls on or after 1 January 2027. NB the effective date of termination for the purposes of assessing qualifying service will take into account the addition of statutory minimum notice, where relevant.

Litigation procedure/remedy

EAT remits remedy and reinstatement in unfair dismissal case over social media posts.

The EAT held that the ET erred in its assessment of contributory conduct and whether to order reinstatement after finding the Claimant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent for Facebook posts relating to a workplace grievance, and remitted these issues for reconsideration. The Claimant, a warehouse colleague, was dismissed following a series of Facebook posts about a workplace grievance and other matters, some of which referenced managers and included controversial language. The Tribunal found he had not been properly trained on the relevant social media policy, was not asked to remove the posts, and that the Respondent failed to consider mitigating factors or alternative sanctions. On appeal, the EAT found the ET had not properly analysed all relevant conduct before and after dismissal, and had not considered whether the qualified right to freedom of expression should affect its approach. The EAT clarified the legal principles for reducing awards for contributory conduct and emphasised that the Tribunal must consider whether the employer genuinely and rationally believes trust and confidence has broken down when deciding on reinstatement. It must consider whether it would be just to order reinstatement, not just whether it was practicable. The case was remitted to the same ET to reconsider these issues. DHL Services Limited v Pawel Ignatowicz EAT 74