This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) a webinar from Lexis+ UK Employment team member Cathy Hoar, and Stephen Ratcliffe of Baker & McKenzie looking at some of the most significant changes contained in the Employment Rights Bill, (2) analysis by Victoria Hordern of Taylor Wessing LLP of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, (3) a successful paternity leave sex discrimination employment tribunal claim, (4) notice that all employment tribunal online services (affecting submission of ET1s, ET3s and digital applications) will be temporarily unavailable between 18.00 and 23.00 on Monday 16 December 2024 due to a planned upgrade, (5) our new Practice Note providing a destination table showing how the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (ET Rules 2024), in force from 6 January 2025, correspond to the ET Rules 2013 which they replace, (6) our new Precedent comprising a set of clauses that may be inserted by a customer into a contract with a supplier to help the customer (as an employer) comply with its duty to prevent sexual harassment under section 40A of the Equality Act 2010, (7) dates for your diary, and (8) other news items of interest to employment practitioners.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The fourth defendant, Lancashire County Council, applied for an order pursuant to CPR 11(1)(b) and CPR 11(6))b) to set aside service of the claim form against it. Alternatively, the fourth defendant sought an order striking out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) (‘Application’). The Application was made on the basis that the court should decline its jurisdiction to entertain the claim because, the fourth defendant contended, it had been brought in breach of a contractual requirement that all disputes be first determined by adjudication. The court recognised that adjudication was a mandatory requirement under the contract but exercised its discretion and declined the Application. In refusing either to strike out or stay the claim, the court considered that it would be disproportionate to strike out the claim and that, due to the multi-party nature of the dispute, a stay would not resolve all the issues in the claim. The court considered that, if the claim against the fourth defendant was stayed, the claim against the other three parties would proceed in the meantime, and this could give rise to procedural complications. Written by Anna Gilbert, counsel, Hausfeld & Co LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision confirms that the place where professional services (in this case advice and contract drafting by a solicitor) are actually carried out is not necessarily the place of performance for the purpose of determining jurisdiction under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982), Sch 4, para 3(a). Rather a broader analysis of the ‘place of performance’ is required, which considers the purpose of the performance. In this case, the connections of the obligation to advise and draft agreements were so tied to England that the place of performance of the obligation was in England. In determining jurisdiction under para 3(a), the court will look at the jurisprudence on Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention 1968. The court deprecated reliance on the cases decided on Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (or its equivalents in Brussels Recast and the Lugano Convention), which had not been incorporated into the CJJA 1982, Sch 4. Written by Jonathan Schaffer-Goddard, barrister at 4 Pump Court.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published a speech by its Acting Executive Director for Consumer Protection, Emma Cochrane, outlining the CMA’s progress and future priorities under the consumer protection provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024). The speech reflects on the first ten months of the regime, which came into force in April 2025. Cochrane describes the DMCCA 2024 as marking a ‘genuine shift’ in UK consumer enforcement, noting that, for the first time, the CMA can decide whether consumer protection laws have been infringed, rather than having to litigate through the courts, and can issue penalties directly where breaches are found. She says the CMA’s approach to exercising these powers is guided by its ‘4Ps’ principles: pace, predictability, proportionality and process. She also highlights the CMA’s publication of updated guidance and engagement with businesses to support compliance under the new regime, and points to the new banned practices relating to fake reviews introduced by the DMCCA 2024. Looking ahead, she says further enforcement action can be expected, particularly in areas of essential household spend and in relation to fake reviews, unfair contract terms and drip pricing where businesses fail to change their behaviour. She concludes that the CMA is beginning to see the deterrent effect of the new regime, with businesses investing in training and reviewing practices, and says the CMA will continue to use its new powers ‘thoughtfully, strategically and effectively’ to protect consumers and support compliant businesses.

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. This Precedent was suitable for use up to and including 31 May 2022. On entering into force of the UK VABEO on 1 June 2022, this Precedent was archived and has been replaced with new Precedent: Distribution agreement—exclusive which is suitable for use with the UK VABEO from 1 June 2022. This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Manufacturer); and 2 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Distributor); each of the Manufacturer and the Distributor being a party and together they are the parties. Background (A) The Manufacturer manufactures [and supplies] the Products. (B) The Distributor has agreed to distribute [and support] the Products on an exclusive basis in the Territory on the terms of this Agreement. The parties agree: 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Agreement: Affiliate • means any entity that directly or indirectly Controls, is Controlled by, or is in under common Control with, another

Dispute Resolution analysis: Two sets of neighbours found themselves in multiple sets of litigation against each other. The litigation arose as a result of excavation works which one set of neighbours intended to carry out in order to build a basement complex. The litigation was compromised by a Tomlin order. The Tomlin order provided that, in the event of a dispute about the level of compensation to be paid because of the works, either party would have ‘a right to appeal…which for all purposes shall be treated as an appeal under [the Party Wall etc. Act 1996]’. After a dispute arose as to the level of compensation to be paid, one set of neighbours appealed to the County Court under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (PWA 1996). On appeal to the High Court, Mrs Justice Foster decided that PWA 1996 did not apply and the parties could not give the court jurisdiction under the PWA 1996 by agreement. Nevertheless, the parties could still bring their dispute to court because the terms of a Tomlin order constitute a contract, therefore the parties can have recourse to the county court under a contractual claim. Written by Alexander Campbell, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has published the first part of its response to consultation on refinements for Contracts for Difference Allocation Round 8, announcing amendments to the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) Regulations 2014, SI 2014/2011. The response addresses the legislative proposals set out in Chapter 5 of the December 2025 consultation, which focused on improving scheme efficiency and administrative robustness, and confirms that the National Energy System Operator (NESO) will be able to correct certain administrative errors made during the assessment of CfD applications, including by issuing new or amended non‑qualification determination notices and applying a pause to the allocation process for affected projects only in order to accommodate additional Tier 1 appeals. DESNZ also confirms that the SI 2014/2014 will be amended to allow NESO, in specified circumstances, to consider new documentary evidence or information at the Tier 1 review stage to rectify non‑material errors or omissions, with the scope of acceptable evidence and applicable error types to be set out in the Contract Allocation Framework (CAF), alongside further administrative rules.

The European Commission has announced plans to engage with consumers and video game publishers by the end of 2026 following the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) ‘Stop Destroying Videogames’, which called for legislation to ensure players can continue to play video games after publishers stop providing commercial support. The Commission considers it cannot currently propose a legal obligation to keep video games playable after they are no longer provided commercially due to existing intellectual property rights, including copyright protections. It notes that existing EU consumer law already provides safeguards protecting consumers’ economic interests, including information requirements on contract duration and termination, and remedies under the Directive on digital content and digital services where content or services do not conform with contracts or consumer expectations. To address players’ concerns, the Commission intends to initiate discussions with the video game industry and consumer representatives on a code of conduct for managing video games’ ‘end of life’, and will work with consumer organisations and authorities to raise awareness of applicable consumer rights.

Commercial analysis: A restrictive covenant in a shareholders’ agreement is akin to a restrictive covenant between the seller and buyer of a business and will benefit from the more liberal approach to enforcement that such agreements attract. That more liberal approach, which is based on the respect that the courts generally show to contract terms freely negotiated by commercial parties of more or less equal bargaining power, permits the protection of a wider range of legitimate interests than is the case with a restrictive covenant in an employment relationship, but even so, the restrictive covenant will be struck down if it goes further than is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the covenantee. The decision also serves as a reminder that the assessment of loss to the covenantee flowing from a breach by a covenantor of a restrictive covenant will often involve a consideration of the hypothetical actions of third parties—what would the customer/contact/client have done if they had not been solicited by the covenantee, such that the claim will properly be framed as a loss of a chance? Written by David Fisher, barrister, and an associate member of New Square Chambers.

The EU has adopted its 20th package of sanctions against Russia, widening restrictions across energy, trade, financial services and crypto while adding new legal protections for EU operators. For arbitration practitioners, the package is relevant not simply as another sanctions development, but because it may shape disputes strategy and enforcement risk. The measures allow Member State courts to fine Russians who bring abusive proceedings before Russian courts, enable EU firms to seek damages where abusive judgments are enforced in third countries, and permit restrictions on third-country actors involved in that enforcement. The package also activates, for the first time, the EU’s anti-circumvention tool and expands restrictions affecting banks, payment channels, crypto services, tanker sales and shadow-fleet operations. In practice, that may affect arbitrations involving Russian parties, sanctioned supply chains or third-country intermediaries by complicating contract performance, payment mechanics and enforcement planning. It may also affect arbitral awards, because tighter restrictions on payments and cross-border enforcement could make the payment, recognition or enforcement of awards more difficult.

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) HMRC guidance on new PAYE rules for labour supply chains that include umbrella companies, which will apply from 6 April 2026, (2) the government’s response to the report by the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) on the UK’s parental leave system, accepting many of the WEC’s recommendations and recognising the need for reform, (3) the Judicial Appointments Commission selection exercise to recruit non-legal members to Employment Tribunals in England and Wales, applications for which close on 7 October 2025, (4) an EAT decision addressing the limits to the open justice principle in relation to remote hearings, (5) from the Lexis+® UK Employment team, a new executive service agreement playbook for use when drafting and negotiating an executive service agreement (or employment contract for a director), and a new Practice Note containing key and illustrative cases involving gender-critical and/or gender identity beliefs, (6) dates for your diary, and (7) other news items of interest to employment practitioners.

This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Manufacturer); and 2 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in [country] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Distributor); each of the Manufacturer and the Distributor being a party and together they are the parties. Background (A) The Manufacturer manufactures [and supplies] the Products. (B) The Distributor has agreed to distribute [and support] the Products on a non-exclusive basis in the Territory in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. The parties agree: 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Agreement: Active Sales • has the meaning given in Article 1(1)(l) of VBER; Affiliate • means any entity that directly or indirectly Controls, is Controlled by, or is in under common Control with, another entity; Business Day • means a day other than a Saturday, Sunday or bank or public holiday in England; Business Plan • means the business plan set out in Schedule 6 as modified by the Manufacturer from time to time by giving written notice to the Distributor; Confidential Information