Employment analysis: The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has clarified that the test for triggering the statutory duty to consult in a collective redundancy under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992) depends on what an employer is proposing at the relevant time and does not require retrospectively aggregating redundancies over a rolling period using the ‘forwards and backwards’ approach established in UQ v Marclean. The decision by the EAT is the first determination on the Marclean judgment by an appeal court in the UK and therefore provides much needed clarity on a previously uncertain area of the law on collective redundancies.

Employment analysis: In Hancox v Kenneth Sutherland, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed an appeal against a successful strike out on the basis that the claimant had a reasonably arguable ground which the Employment Tribunal struck out without giving him fair notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond. The judgment also gives important procedural guidance on generative AI: namely that parties, whether represented or not, remain personally responsible for ensuring AI-assisted documents are accurate, relevant, concise and compliant with procedural rules.

Employment analysis: Correspondence from a claimant who was recently bereaved and concerned about the prospect of a costs order was equivocal and did not amount to a withdrawal of his claim. The dismissal judgment (which was both a judgment putting into effect the determination that there had been an effective withdrawal and also a dismissal judgment) was made in error of law as there was no unequivocal withdrawal. The EAT provided guidance on the distinction between withdrawal of a claim and dismissal of a claim, and their consequences, and the correct procedural route where the claimant wishes to assert that they have not withdrawn their claim because the communication in question was not clear, unequivocal and unambiguous.

Employment analysis: An employment tribunal erred in law by awarding a claimant a ‘manifestly excessive’ £10,000 award for injury to feelings following a successful claim of maternity discrimination, and by failing adequately to explain why it awarded the amount it did, according to the EAT in Eddie Stobart v Graham. The EAT substituted an award of £2,000 (plus interest). The EAT set out a number of factors for parties to consider when providing evidence in support of claims for injury to feelings to assist tribunals to appropriately draw inferences on impact, and useful guidance on the relationship between the manner of discrimination and the severity of the injury.

his Practice Note considers the time limit for appealing an employment tribunal judgment to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). It covers the 42-day time limit for appeals, the date from which the time limit runs, the receipt of an appeal and there being no deemed service rule for documents sent by post. It also deals with applications to extend time to instigate an appeal under the extension of time provisions under Rule 37(1) and Rule 37(5) of the EAT Rules 1993 (EAT Rules), and discusses guidelines and criteria for allowing more time, as set out in the relevant caselaw. Calculating the time limit for presenting a Notice of Appeal An appeal against an order, direction or decision must be submitted within 42 days of the date of the order, direction or decision. The EAT will treat an employment tribunal’s refusal to make an order or decision as itself constituting an order, direction or decision. The date of the order, direction, or decision, is the date when they are sent to the parties, which is normally recorded on the

The Environment Agency (EA) has published its 2022 report on the environmental performance of the businesses it regulates. It covers the emissions from those businesses, the number of serious pollution incidents and the sectors responsible, compliance with environmental permits, enforcement action taken and how the EA supports the businesses it regulates. The EA has also published data on compliance ratings, pollution inventory, pollution incidents, enforcement and waste crime for 2022. These datasets support the report.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) has announced that José Manuel Campa will step down as Chairperson at the end of January 2026, citing personal and family-related reasons. Campa will remain in his role until his departure to ensure a smooth leadership transition. In light of his resignation, the EBA is initiating the standard procedure to select a new Chairperson.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) has issued an Opinion on the European Commission's proposed amendments to the EBA draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) concerning conflicts of interest for issuers of asset-referenced tokens (ARTs). The draft RTS are designed to enhance the management of conflicts of interest by ART issuers and ensure uniformity of requirements across the EU under the Markets in Cryptoassets Regulation (MiCA Regulation). The EBA supports the substantive changes suggested by the Commission, which emphasise proportionality, along with other non-substantive amendments.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) has published technical advice to the European Commission on fees for validating pro forma models under Regulation (EU) 648/2012 (the European Markets Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR)). The advice proposes a fee framework to be set out in a Delegated Act, with an estimated total cost of €1.5m–€2.0m for the first year, allocated proportionately based on counterparties' monthly average notional amounts of non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. For new models, including the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Standard Initial Margin Model (ISDA SIMM), the EBA recommends a €500,000 annual validation fee to be shared among applicants. The framework would cover direct and indirect costs, with fees payable annually by 31 October 2025.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) has published a ‘No Action Letter’ recommending that the EU institutions ensure that, in the long term, there is no dual authorisation requirement for transacting electronic money tokens (EMTs) under both Payment Services Directive (PSD2/3) and Markets in Cryptoassets Regulation (MiCA). The advice is aimed at minimising administrative burdens on cryptoasset service providers (CASPs) while maintaining consumer protection and market stability. The advice, formulated in response to a request from the European in December 2024, established a transition period until 2 March 2026 during which only selected CASPs transacting EMTs are required to obtain PSD2 authorisation.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) has published a final report on the amendment of its Guidelines on ICT and security risk management measures due to the application of the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) from 17 January 2025. These amendments aim to simplify the ICT risk management framework and provide legal clarity to the market. DORA introduces harmonised ICT risk management requirements for financial entities across various sectors. The EBA has narrowed the scope of its Guidelines to entities covered by DORA and specific requirements for managing relationships with payment services. The amended Guidelines will apply within two months of the publication of the translated versions.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) has amended its guidelines on arrears and foreclosure following the changes introduced in the Mortgage Credit Directive (MCD). The EBA assessed the impact of the recent revision of Article 28(1) of the MCD and concluded that, in order to adhere to the principle that EBA guidelines must not repeat, amend or contradict requirements set out in Level 1 legislation, the guidelines on arrears and foreclosure needed to be amended. They apply within two months of the publication of the translated versions.