An accident suffered by a person during the course of employment.

This Flowchart explains what the requirements are for industrial action to qualify for statutory immunity under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992), as amended by the Employment Rights Act 2025. There is no positive right to organise or participate in industrial action in English law. At common law, industrial action will generally be unlawful. The trade union that organises industrial action will usually commit one or more of what are often called the ‘economic’ or ‘industrial’ torts. Those participating in industrial action will often be acting in breach of their contracts of employment. Statute intervenes, however, to provide immunity against tortious liability to a trade union organising industrial action, although this protection is subject to considerable and complex statutory control. Industrial action that qualifies for statutory immunity has ‘protected’ status. Industrial action in which statutory immunity does not arise, or is lost, is not protected. The consequences for a trade union of calling industrial action that turns out not to have statutory

Employment analysis: Under section 230 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992), union members must be allowed to vote in a ballot for industrial action without ‘interference’ by their union. If this requirement is not met then the union risks losing its statutory immunity against tortious liability (eg for inducing a breach of contract). In this context, ‘interference’ means conduct, whether by words or action, which has the effect of preventing, or hindering, the ordinary course of the voting process. It is not limited to conduct which amounts to intimidation, coercion, fraud or the like, according to the Court of Appeal.

This Practice Note provides guidance on the various aspects of industrial action from an employee’s perspective. It includes the employee’s right to ballot, the circumstances in which an individual employee may be liable and the potential consequences of industrial action. Industrial action is integral to the collective bargaining process. It can be initiated by employers (in the form of a lockout), or by workers through their union, usually in the form of a strike. Industrial action, or the threat of industrial action, is part of the leverage that one side exercises on the other in the negotiation to secure a deal. In this context, industrial action has been defined as workers refusing to do ‘something’ as a bargaining weapon, whether or not the ‘something’ is in breach of contract. Industrial action is also a method for resolving disputes of right, where the complaint is that the other side has broken its promise and has failed to honour the agreed deal. Industrial action often represents the final stage of an industrial dispute between an employer and workers

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: On 23 June 2026, the government published a response to the consultation Make Work Pay: protection from detriments for taking industrial action. According to the response, the government will introduce regulations prohibiting all detriments imposed on workers for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring them from taking industrial action. The regulations also add claims under section 236A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992) to TULR(C)A 1992, Sch 2, enabling employment tribunals to adjust compensation awards by up to 25% where there has been an unreasonable failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026 were published on 25 June 2026 and are set to come into force on 30 October 2026. For further information, see News Analysis: Government opts to prohibit all detriments for taking industrial action. This Practice Note will be updated in due course. This Practice Note provides guidance on various aspects of industrial action from an

Key information Industrial and Livestock Rearing Emissions Directive Title Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial and livestock rearing emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast) (Industrial and Livestock Rearing Emissions Directive or ‘IED’) Entry into force 6 January 2011 Deadline for transposition 6 January 2013 National transposition measures See Eur-Lex list of national transposition measures, as provided by Member States. Note that the transposition deadline for the 2024 revisions made by Directive (EU) 2024/1785 was 1 July 2026. Amended by Directive (EU) 2024/1785 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 amending Directive 2010/75/EU and Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste. In force 4 August 2024, subject to transitional provisions—see Transitional implementation of 2024 revisions. Repeals Large Combustion Plant Directive 2001/80/EC—repealed 1 January 2016IPPC Directive 2008/1/EC—repealed 7 January 2014Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC (WID)—repealed 7 January 2014Volatile Organic Compound Directive 1999/13/EC (VOCs Directive)—repealed 7 January 2014Titanium Dioxide Directives on—disposal (Directive

The legal form for Bona Fide Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies established under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965, now superseded by the term statutory term Registered Societies.

UK battery strategy In December 2023, the UK government published its battery strategy. It was developed by and is implemented through the UK Battery Strategy Taskforce. Key pillars of the strategy are design, build and sustain. The main strategic goals to 2030 is the development of a resilient UK battery supply chain. Battery producers are subject to producer-responsibility obligations under the Waste Batteries and Accumulators Regulations 2009, including registration and, for relevant producers, financing the collection, treatment and recycling of waste batteries. It is likely that the regulation of batteries in the UK will develop to include extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations. EPR is designed to move the full cost of dealing with waste from households to the producers (applying the ‘polluter pays principle’). Producers are expected to meet updated recycling targets and clearly label recyclability. The UK government and devolved administrations’ commitments to introducing EPR were included in the 2018 Resource and Waste Strategy for England and the Welsh Government’s Beyond Recycling. As well as detailing Defra’s commitments and actions going forward, the strategy provided

An invention shall be taken to be capable of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture.

A disease or disability caused by conditions of employment.

Environment analysis: The eight week consultation on Modernising Environmental Permitting for Industry provides the public with an opportunity to comment on a ‘once in a generation set of reforms’ to the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016. In order to propose reforms for a modernised framework the consultation considers key goals: ‘Enabling innovation and encouraging new technologies and techniques’; ‘Agile standards—rapid, predictable and integrated standard setting’; ‘Proportionate regulation and coherence in the framework’; ‘Regulator effectiveness and efficiency’; and ‘A transparent framework’. Among a backdrop of emerging clean technologies, net-zero and circular economy goals, and wider goals of economic growth, the consultation seeks views to transform the industrial permitting system. Written by Nick Harding, senior associate and Hannah Fraser, associate at BCLP LLP.

The joint statement from industry and trade associations expresses support for the European Commission's initiative to provide guidance on Article 102 TFEU but raises concerns about the Draft Guidelines' potential to reduce legal certainty and predictability. The statement criticizes the shift away from an effects-based economic approach, the introduction of presumptions of harm, and the reversal of the burden of proof, which could hinder innovation and competitiveness. It recommends maintaining an effects-based approach, clarifying key concepts, reaffirming the as-efficient-competitor standard, removing broad presumptions of harm, and ensuring a clear evidentiary framework. The statement calls for revisions to the Draft Guidelines to enhance legal certainty and support innovation and growth.