Because of its failure to take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect employees with less than one year's service from dismissal on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation, the United Kingdom has violated Article 11 (right to freedom of association) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Appropriate protection could have been achieved either by creating a further exception, in the case of dismissals for that reason, to the unfair dismissal qualifying period, or by creating a free-standing protection against unlawful discrimination on those grounds. ECHR: Redfearn v United Kingdom (application by a driver in private sector employment who had been dismissed solely on account of his membership of, candidature for, and election as a local councillor for the BNP).

Employment analysis: In rare cases, such as where there is an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship between the claimant and her manager, and the facts show that there would have been nothing useful to be gained in holding formal meeting(s) or an appeal before deciding to dismiss, a dismissal may be found to have been not unfair despite the fact that the employer undertook no formal procedure, according to the EAT.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Master Stevens refused permission for the defendant in a personal injury claim to resile from a pre-action admission of liability. The defendant argued that new evidence concerning the accident locus had come to light, and the admission had been made on a mistaken basis. The judge held that it would reflect poorly on the justice system to allow the defendant a ‘last bite on the cherry’ in respect of admitted liability when so many experienced claims handlers had reviewed the matter over a considerable period of time. Written by David Juckes, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court dismissed the appeal of Contract Natural Gas (Marketing) Ltd (Marketing) under Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, r 14.8 against the liquidators' rejection of its proof of debt for unpaid commission, save for a limited agreed amount. It held that an agreement between Contract Natural Gas Ltd (CNG) and Marketing dated 9 September 2004 appointing Marketing as sales agent to market, retain and obtain supply customers in exchange for commission (the 2004 Agreement) permitted commission to be calculated by reference to wider business costs and did not unlawfully derogate from the Commercial Agents Regulations 1993 (1993 Regulations), SI 1993/3053. Marketing failed to prove customary or reasonable remuneration under regulation 6 and alleged oral variations could not bind the liquidators in discharging their statutory duties. The decision emphasises that creditors bear the burden of proving debts and should assess contractual terms, no oral modification clauses and appeal costs before challenging an office-holder's adjudication. Produced in partnership with Anamitra Mukhopadhyay of Trowers & Hamlins LLP.

Where an employee is purportedly dismissed for an act of misconduct which is capable of justifying dismissal, the dismissal may be unfair if the true reason (or principal reason) for his dismissal was in fact not that misconduct but another reason entirely, eg pre-existing concerns about the employee's capability, and the misconduct has been used 'opportunistically' as a pretext for dismissal, according to the EAT in (1) Governing Body of John Loughborough School (2) LB of Haringey v Alexis.

ARCHIVED: This archived Checklist provides a high-level overview of the issues that an employer should consider before proceeding to dismiss an employee on grounds of misconduct, and signposts other relevant materials. For guidance on managing conduct generally, see Practice Notes: Managing conduct and Dismissing fairly for conduct reasons. • Investigation and procedure ◦ Have all internal disciplinary procedures been followed? See Practice Notes: Hhow to conduct a disciplinary investigation and How to conduct a disciplinary hearing ◦ If there are no internal procedures, have the provisions of the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (Acas Code) been followed? For details of these, see Practice Notes: Dismissing fairly for conduct reasons and Acas disciplinary and grievance code—procedural requirements for details. See also Practice Note: General requirements for discipline and grievance procedures ◦ Check that, as an absolute minimum: ‣ interviews of relevant witnesses and the employee have been carried out to try and establish the facts surrounding the complaint ‣ the employee has been given the opportunity to

This Practice Note outlines the legal and practical issues to be considered when dismissing a senior executive or an executive director. Introduction A combination of factors must be addressed when considering the dismissal of a senior executive. Additional considerations apply when the individual is also a director. This Practice Note explains these issues and signposts further, more detailed, materials available. Tactical issues When considering dismissing a senior executive, the employer should have the following questions in mind: • how can any potential disruption to the employer’s business be minimised? • how should the dismissal be communicated to fellow executives and remaining employees and what reasons should be given? • how quickly could and should the dismissal take place? While these considerations apply when dismissing any member of staff, additional issues arise where the employee is a senior executive, and further ones when that executive is also a director, such as removal from office, payment for and disclosure of loss of office and retrieval of company shares (see Directors below for further information). Senior executives and directors

This Practice Note examines the procedure that an employer should follow in order to manage the fair dismissal of an employee for conduct reasons and to minimise the risk of unfair dismissal. Employees with sufficient length of service and who otherwise meet the qualifying criteria have statutory protection from unfair dismissal (see Practice Notes: Entitlement to claim unfair dismissal and Qualifying period for unfair dismissal). To avoid a finding of unfair dismissal, employers need a fair reason to dismiss. One of the potentially fair reasons for dismissing an employee is conduct (see Practice Note: Reason for dismissal—general—Potentially fair reasons). However, in order to dismiss an employee fairly because of their conduct, employers must also follow a fair procedure which (except in cases of gross misconduct where dismissal is justified) allows employees sufficient opportunity to improve. Ultimately it must be shown that dismissal is a fair sanction to impose. Further guidance on the fairness of dismissals for misconduct is given in Practice Note: Reason for dismissal—conduct and it is recommended that those advising on this issue also

This Practice Note examines the procedure that an employer should follow to manage the fair dismissal of an employee for performance reasons and to minimise the risk of unfair dismissal. Employees with sufficient length of service and who otherwise meet the qualifying criteria have statutory protection from unfair dismissal (see Practice Notes: Entitlement to claim unfair dismissal and Qualifying period for unfair dismissal). To avoid a finding of unfair dismissal, employers need a fair reason to dismiss. One of the potentially fair reasons for dismissing an employee is capability or performance (see Practice Note: Reason for dismissal—general—Potentially fair reasons). However, in order to dismiss an employee fairly because of their performance, the employer must also follow a fair procedure which allows the employee sufficient opportunity to improve. Ultimately, it must be shown that dismissal is a fair sanction to impose. Performance management For details of the aims of performance management, the impact of bonuses and incentive schemes, how to monitor performance, performance procedures and dealing with poor performance, see Practice Note: Managing performance. Those

Law360: Disney and Universal have teamed up to sue artificial intelligence company Midjourney in California federal court, calling the startup in their June 2025 action a 'copyright free-rider' for training its AI art generator with their protected works from such iconic franchises as 'Star Wars', Marvel's 'Iron Man', 'Shrek' and 'The Simpsons'.

Law360, London: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) hit Disney with a pan-European injunction on 23 July 2026, barring the media giant from infringing InterDigital's high efficiency video coding (HEVC) encoding patent in major markets including France, Germany and Italy.

The court has the power to order that the claim form or other documents do not need to be served, notwithstanding the service rules in CPR 6. This only applies in exceptional circumstances.