Arbitration analysis: The Delhi High Court restrained Argo from continuing an LMAA arbitration, holding that no arbitration agreement existed where the signed Booking Note incorporated rider clauses 20–41 but not clause 43, which contained the arbitration provision. Applying the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the court held that prior negotiations and the Fixture Recap could not vary or supplement the clear terms of the signed document, nor could the tribunal rectify the Booking Note to create its own jurisdiction. The decision highlights the need for arbitration provisions to be expressly incorporated into signed contractual documents and confirms that, where consent to arbitrate is absent, an Indian court may intervene notwithstanding a foreign tribunal’s jurisdictional ruling. Produced in partnership with Saurabh Seth, advocate, of Chambers of Saurabh Seth, New Delhi, who appeared for the successful appellants, led by Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate.

Employment analysis: From 6 April 2024, new increased compensation limits for employment tribunal claims will come into force, including a revised figure of £700 (currently £643) for the maximum amount of a week's pay (used for calculating various awards including statutory redundancy payments and unfair dismissal basic awards), and a higher maximum unfair dismissal compensatory award of £115,115 (currently £105,707), under the provisions of the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2024. The increases made by the Order reflect the increase in the retail prices index of 8.9% from September 2022 to September 2023.

Employment analysis: From 6 April 2025, new increased compensation limits for employment tribunal claims will come into force, including a revised figure of £719 (currently £700 ) for the maximum amount of a week's pay (used for calculating various awards including statutory redundancy payments and unfair dismissal basic awards), and a higher maximum unfair dismissal compensatory award of £118,223 (currently £115,115 ), under the provisions of the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2025. The increases made by the Order reflect the increase in the retail prices index of 2.7% from September 2023 to September 2024.

Employment analysis: From 6 April 2026, new increased compensation limits for employment tribunal claims will come into force, including a revised figure of £751 (currently £719 ) for the maximum amount of a week's pay (used for calculating various awards including statutory redundancy payments and unfair dismissal basic awards), and a higher maximum unfair dismissal compensatory award of £123,543 (currently £118,223), under the provisions of the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2026. The increases made by the Order reflect the increase in the retail prices index of 4.5% from September 2024 to September 2025.

Employment analysis: In considering a challenge to the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal to determine unfair dismissal and discrimination claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) and the Equality Act 2010, the Employment Judge (1) failed to recognise the important distinction between international jurisdiction on the one hand and territorial jurisdiction on the other, thereby wrongly conflating the two, (2) erred in concluding that, in any claim involving an individual contract of employment, alternative routes to establishing international jurisdiction could be found beyond those in sections 15C and 15D of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, and (3) erred in concluding, on the facts found by him, that territorial jurisdiction could be established by ERA 1996, s 199(7) and regulation 3 of the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011, but (4) had not erred in concluding that territorial jurisdiction in respect of the ERA 1996 unfair dismissal claim arose by applying the principles in Lawson and in Ravat, according to the EAT.

Pensions analysis: In Haigh v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (‘Haigh’), the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed Mr Haigh’s (the Appellant) appeal against HMRC’s decision to refuse his notification for Fixed Protection 2012 (FP 2012). FP 2012 notification allows taxpayers to rely on paragraph 14 of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2011 (FA 2011) and access the preserved lifetime allowance of £1,800,000 before extra tax is chargeable on their pensions, per FA 2011, Sch 18 para 14(3). HMRC refused to recognise the Appellant’s notification because it came ten years after the deadline laid out in The Registered Pension Schemes (Lifetime Allowance Transitional Protection) Regulations 2011 (the FP 2012 Regulations), SI 2011/1752 .The Appellant did not dispute notification was late but argued on public law grounds that the FTT could, and should, interfere with HMRC’s exercise of discretion. The issues to be determined by the FTT were: (i) did the notice comply with the FP 2012 Regulations and (ii) does the scope of the FTT’s jurisdiction include supervision of HMRC’s discretion. The FTT held the answer was no to both questions, and therefore dismissed the appeal. Written by Rowena Wisniewska Sethi, barrister and Isabella Taylor, pupil at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.

Employment analysis: An employment tribunal has ruled that a Christian employee’s beliefs that gender cannot be fluid and that an individual cannot change their biological sex do constitute protected beliefs under the Equality Act 2010. James Brown, Rachel Farr and Mandy Li, Knowledge Lawyers at Baker McKenzie provide analysis of the decision.

Law360: The UK can levy £5.4 million (USD7.4 million) in taxes on an Isle of Man developer's profits from selling land in Kent, the Upper Tribunal (UT) said on 25 August 2026 in a case that could allow HMRC to avoid issuing more than £1 billion in refunds.

Tax analysis: HMRC successfully applied to the First-tier Tax Tribunal (the FTT or the Tribunal) to strike out a second appeal made in respect of the same HMRC decision after the first appeal was struck out due to repeated non-compliance by the appellant's accountant. HMRC issued a closure notice to an individual taxpayer and this was appealed as part of the first appeal together with amendments to the individual's self-assessment return. The appellant was represented by an accountant acting as his agent. During the case management of the appeal, the accountant repeatedly failed to meet the Tribunal's directions. These failures culminated in the Tribunal issuing an unless order, which he also failed to meet. As a result, the appeal was struck out by the Tribunal. Rather than requesting re-instatement of the appeal, a second appeal was lodged by the accountant on the same grounds for the same assessment as the first appeal. HMRC applied for the second appeal to be struck out on the basis that it was substantially identical to the first appeal, and the legal principle known as ‘cause of action’ estoppel applied; or in the alternative it would be an ‘abuse of process’ to allow the second appeal to continue. The FTT allowed the application to strike out the second appeal on the grounds of abuse of process. Written by Tajinder Barring, director and Nina Basra, chartered tax advisor, DWF Law LLP.

Financial Services analysis: The Applicant, Heather Dunne, made two Privacy Applications and one case management application in relation to publication of Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Decision Notices. Ms Dunne had provided pension transfer advice as an appointed representative (trading as HDIFA) of Financial Solutions Midhurst Limited (FSML). The FCA found that she and FSML had operated an advice model that put customers' guaranteed pension benefits at risk. The Privacy Applications sought to ensure that her reference did not appear on the Upper Tribunal's register and that there was no publication by the FCA or any other party about the Decision Notices issued to her and the director of FSML. Both applications were rejected by the Tribunal. Written by Lucy Tolond and Ryan Marwood, DWF Law LLP.

Law360: The Employment Appeal Tribunal has revived a job applicant's discrimination claims against University College London's hospital trust, finding that a key witness wasn't 'lost' simply because the witness was no longer on the payroll.

Pensions analysis: The Company appealed against the imposition of a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) issued for non-compliance with an Unpaid Contributions Notice (UCN). A review was requested by the director of the company on the basis that its payroll agent had died, and its new agent was unable to access the pension provider account. The review was rejected by TPR. On appeal, the First Tier Tribunal decided that the company had a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with the UCN, taking account of its size, its lack of fault and the difficulty in overcoming the lack of access to the pension provider account. It revoked the FPN. The judgment highlights the importance of context in regulatory enforcement and the need for accessible support from TPR as well as the sort of factors that will be considered in deciding whether an employer has a reasonable excuse. Written by Doug Mullen, partner and Lauren Broderick, associate at Anthony Collins.