A 72-year-old university cleaner has been awarded over a quarter of a million pounds after being unfairly sacked following a dispute with her boss over a banned rice cooker.

Peak Ong, a Malaysian-born cleaner who worked 15 hours a week at Aberystwyth University in Wales, won £264,442 in compensation after an employment tribunal found serious flaws in the university’s disciplinary process. The case highlights how seemingly trivial workplace disagreements can escalate into costly legal battles.

The trouble began when Ong was accused of buying a rice cooker for a student after the university banned the appliances from halls of residence. This incident was the latest flashpoint in a long-running feud between Ong and her line manager, Catherine Green.

The tribunal heard that Ong had made multiple complaints about Green’s alleged bullying and age-based harassment. Despite being assigned a new manager, tensions continued. Green eventually made a formal complaint claiming Ong would shout at her, refuse to interact, and behave disrespectfully.

Following a flawed investigation, Ong was given a final written warning and told to find an alternative role within seven weeks. When she failed to secure another position, she was dismissed.

The tribunal ruled that the sacking was both “substantively and procedurally unfair.” Crucially, judges questioned whether the university could even rely on a mediation agreement between Ong and Green to justify disciplinary action, noting the university was not a party to that private arrangement.

The case took an even darker turn when Ong lost a conditional job offer as a night care assistant after the university provided a reference that stated: “Unable to comment – the University remains in dispute with the applicant.” Judge Dilbaag Bansal called this conduct “irresponsible and retaliatory.”

Ong, who represented herself throughout the proceedings, told the tribunal she felt “humiliated.”

Aberystwyth University apologised, saying: “We respect the tribunal’s decision and are reviewing our processes to ensure this cannot happen again.” However, the six-figure payout serves as a stark warning to employers about the dangers of flawed disciplinary procedures and vindictive references.

South Staffordshire Plc and its subsidiary, South Staffordshire Water Plc, have been fined £963,900 by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) following a major cyber-attack that compromised the personal data of over 630,000 individuals.

The breach, which the ICO traced back to September 2020, began with a single successful phishing email. An employee opened a malicious attachment, allowing hackers to install software that remained undetected inside the company’s network for 20 months. It was not until May 2022 that the attacker moved through the system and obtained domain administrator privileges—the highest level of access. The attack largely took place between May and July 2022, but the company only discovered the intrusion on 15 July 2022, when IT performance issues prompted an internal investigation.

The fallout was severe. Between August and November 2022, over 4.1 terabytes of data were published on the dark web, exposing the personal information of 633,887 people. Affected customers had their full names, addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, telephone numbers, online account credentials, and even bank account numbers and sort codes leaked. For employees, the breach was worse: National Insurance numbers and other HR data were also exposed. A small percentage of customers on the Priority Services Register had information published from which disabilities could be inferred.

The ICO’s investigation found significant security failures. Only 5% of the IT environment was being monitored. Some devices still ran obsolete, unsupported software, including Windows Server 2003. Vulnerability management was inadequate, with unpatched critical systems and no regular security scans. These failures allowed the attackers to escalate privileges and operate without detection for nearly two years.

Ian Hulme, the ICO’s Interim Executive Director for Regulatory Supervision, said that waiting for performance issues or a ransom note to discover a breach was unacceptable, adding that proactive security is a legal requirement, not an optional extra.

The company reached a voluntary settlement with the ICO, admitting liability early and agreeing to pay the reduced fine without appeal. The ICO is now urging all organisations to review their cyber resilience, particularly around access controls, system monitoring, and patch management.

An employment tribunal has ruled that Southend High School for Boys Academy Trust unfairly dismissed Mr Kevin Lilly, a cleaner and caretaker with 16 years of service, following an incident involving sixth-form students.

The case centred on Mr Lilly’s decision to accept a lift from three 18-year-old students to McDonald’s during his lunchbreak. The school dismissed him for alleged breaches of safeguarding policies and failure to follow management instructions.

Employment Judge V Othen found that while Mr Lilly’s actions were clearly inappropriate, the school’s decision to dismiss fell outside the “band of reasonable responses” expected of employers. The judgment highlighted several critical failings in the school’s process.

Most significantly, the tribunal concluded that the school failed to adequately investigate Mr Lilly’s known cognitive and neurodevelopmental needs. The school was aware that Mr Lilly was awaiting an ADHD diagnosis and had previously undergone an assessment for autism spectrum disorder. Despite this, it made no attempt to contact his GP or obtain occupational health advice before dismissing him.

The judgment noted that Mr Lilly “clearly evidenced complex cognitive needs” and that the school, lacking clinical expertise, “assumed that it had enough knowledge and expertise to reasonably understand the claimant’s needs.” The tribunal found this unreasonable, particularly given the repeated nature of his behavioural difficulties over 16 years.

The tribunal observed that medical evidence could have explained whether Mr Lilly’s conduct resulted from his cognitive functioning and whether treatment might reduce future risks. The school did not consider this possibility.

Crucially, the school had never issued Mr Lilly with formal disciplinary warnings as defined under its own procedure. The instruction to “keep away from pupils” was given a decade earlier, and subsequent communications focused on performance rather than conduct. The tribunal also noted that the school did not regard the behaviour as gross misconduct.

Employment Judge Othen emphasised that while safeguarding is paramount, a reasonable employer would have investigated further before dismissing a vulnerable employee with 16 years’ service. The claimant represented himself throughout proceedings and required reasonable adjustments due to difficulties with understanding, communication, and emotional regulation.

The judgment serves as a reminder that misconduct dismissals involving employees with known cognitive needs require careful, conscientious investigation—including proper exploration of medical evidence—before reaching the decision to dismiss.

Britain’s workplace regulator is reminding all company owners of their legal responsibility to hold Employers’ Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI).

The message comes from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following its prosecution of Mill House Metals, a scrap metal merchant based in Widnes, Cheshire.

The company was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £2,000 towards costs after pleading guilty to breaching the Employers’ Liability Compulsory Insurance Act 1969. By law, employers are required to insure against liability for injury or disease to their employees arising out of their employment – it is compulsory insurance.

Liverpool Magistrates Court heard that following an incident at its Hale Road site, the HSE found that there had been no valid certificate of insurance between 18 April 2025 and 30 September 2025. As Mill House Metals Ltd were unable to produce a valid ELCI certificate, this meant that their staff had no means of pursuing a civil claim against the business had they been injured at work or contracted a work-related illness or disease.

“Had Mill House Metal’s employees suffered a work-related injury or illness that warranted a claim for damages, they would have been denied a chance to claim the compensation as recompense for any pain and suffering they had endured.

“That is the purpose of ELCI. It is not a trivial optional extra, it is a compulsory requirement that is designed solely to protect employees.

“The law expects employers to take all reasonably practicable steps to prevent their workforce from being injured or becoming ill, but if incidents do occur then Employers’ Liability Compulsory Insurance cover is vital.”

A Nottingham mother and former health and safety lead for a Star Wars television series has been awarded over £230,000 after a tribunal found she was wrongfully dismissed and victimised by a Lucasfilm-owned production company.

Sadi Khan, who holds an MBE for voluntary service to vulnerable women, was fired from her role as a health and safety supervisor on the Disney+ series The Acolyte. Her employer, Blue Stockings, accused her of gross misconduct for referring to a male colleague as a “white man” and making inappropriate remarks.

But Khan fought back, arguing the phrase was ripped from its proper context. She insisted the true reason for her dismissal was not an offhand comment, but a series of safety concerns she had raised about working conditions on set. When she spoke up, she claimed, the studio pushed her out.

After a protracted legal battle, Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto ruled in her favour on April 1, 2026. The judgment found that Khan had been dismissed on discriminatory grounds and effectively “blacklisted” from future film industry work. The final payout of £234,112.66 covers injury to feelings, wrongful dismissal, loss of earnings, and future financial losses.

Khan said the process had been “deeply challenging” but that the tribunal’s decision spoke for itself. “I was proud to be the first woman of colour in a leadership health and safety role for Lucasfilm in the UK,” she told local media. “I took that responsibility seriously. But when I raised legitimate concerns, I did not feel supported.”

She added that no one should lose their career simply for “doing the right thing and speaking up about safety.”

The case has drawn attention to the treatment of whistleblowers in high-pressure film production environments. Khan, who hopes to eventually return to the industry she loves, said the past few years had taken a serious toll on her health and career.

For now, the tribunal’s award stands as both compensation for her ordeal and, in her words, a reminder of “the importance of accountability” for employers who silence safety complaints.

For millions of disabled people across the UK, the nine-to-five, office-based workweek isn’t just inconvenient – it’s an insurmountable barrier. Recognising this persistent inequality, the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) has launched a new inquiry examining disabled workers’ and jobseekers’ access to flexible working arrangements.

While the right to request flexible work has existed for decades, and the 2024 Flexible Working Act made it a day-one right for all employees, reality tells a different story. Disabled people face some of the highest unemployment rates in the country, and many who are in work report that rigid schedules and location mandates directly conflict with their health needs. Fatigue management, medical appointments, fluctuating conditions, and the need for accessible home workspaces are not lifestyle preferences—they are medical necessities.

The WEC inquiry arrives at a pivotal moment. Remote and hybrid work, normalised during the pandemic, revolutionised employment for many disabled individuals. Suddenly, careers that once required draining commutes and inflexible hours became viable. Yet as employers increasingly mandate a return to in-person work, advocates warn that this “flexibility fade” is systematically excluding disabled people from the labour market once again.

The inquiry will examine several pressing questions – are employers unlawfully rejecting flexible requests without proper justification? Do job adverts implicitly discourage disabled applicants by listing rigid hours? And critically, are disabled jobseekers forced to disclose their conditions early simply to negotiate basic accommodations?

Early evidence submitted to the WEC suggests a postcode lottery of practice. Some progressive employers embed flexibility by default, while others treat each request as an administrative burden. Jobseekers report a hidden “flexibility penalty”—disclosing a need for altered hours can result in withdrawn offers or being ghosted entirely.

The committee has called for written evidence from disabled workers, trade unions, charities, and employers. Crucially, it will assess whether current laws are fit for purpose or if the UK needs a legally enforceable right to flexible work from day one—not just a right to ask.

This inquiry is not about special treatment. It is about parity. For disabled people, flexible working is not a perk; it is the reasonable adjustment that makes employment possible. The WEC’s findings could reshape workplace law for a generation—provided the voices of those most affected are finally heard.

A major shift in UK labour law enforcement has arrived. The Fair Work Agency (FWA) was established on April 7, 2026, consolidating the powers of several previous enforcement bodies into a single entity. Conceived under the Employment Rights Act 2025, the FWA aims to be a “one-stop shop” for workers and employers, combining enforcement of rights like the National Minimum Wage, holiday pay, and sick pay under one roof.

While the FWA is now operational, the government has described the coming year as a “transitional phase.” The budget for enforcement has already been increased by over 25% to £60.1 million, signalling a serious commitment to resourcing this new body.

The agency’s current powers include general inspection authority, issuing notices for underpayment of wages or holiday pay, and obtaining court orders against non-compliant employers. However, additional powers granted by the 2025 Act are not yet active. These future powers include the ability to bring employment tribunal proceedings on a worker’s behalf and recovering enforcement costs from employers.

Initially, the FWA oversees areas such as employment agencies, gangmaster licensing, and modern slavery. Notably, National Minimum Wage enforcement will remain with HMRC under a temporary contract until April 2027. Enforcement of holiday pay and Statutory Sick Pay is expected to begin in 2027, with umbrella company regulation following later.

The FWA’s first-year priorities include reducing regulatory burdens on compliant businesses, building a unified data intelligence system, and raising public awareness. For employers, this new body represents a significant step change in risk. While there is some breathing space before holiday pay enforcement begins, this area is notoriously complex. Miscalculations or misclassifying workers are common pitfalls that will now attract state-level scrutiny.

Employers should not wait for 2027. Proactive steps are needed today: review your holiday pay calculations, National Minimum Wage compliance, and record-keeping processes. With a dedicated, well-funded agency now in place, the cost of getting it wrong will only increase.

First-tier Tribunal rules that Premier League referees engaged by PGMOL are self-employed and not employees

After more than ten years of litigation, the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) has finally defeated HMRC in a tax case that carries profound implications for how self-employment is determined across the UK economy. The First-tier Tribunal, presided over by Judge Geraint Williams, upheld on 1 May 2026 that Premier League referees engaged by PGMOL are genuinely self-employed—not employees. This ruling, following a remittal from the Supreme Court, marks the fifth hearing in this protracted dispute and delivers the same conclusion originally reached by Judge Sarah Falk eight years ago.

The case turned on three critical factors. First, while basic mutuality of obligation existed (payment for work done), the tribunal found the engagements were episodic. Neither PGMOL was obliged to offer matches, nor were referees required to accept them. The mere expectation of future work, even when regularly performed, does not create a legal employment relationship. Second, the tribunal rejected HMRC’s argument that a framework of control automatically points to employment. Crucially, regulatory control from the Football Association was distinguished from managerial control. Referees exercise complete autonomy on the pitch, with PGMOL having no say over how they apply the Laws of the Game.

Third, the decision reinforces that the first two stages of the Ready Mixed Concrete test—personal service and control—are deliberately low thresholds. The real assessment happens at stage three, where all factors must be weighed together. The decision is not finely balanced; the cumulative evidence leads clearly to self-employment. For any firm engaging contractors—especially those working shifts or assignments—this case is a warning. HMRC’s Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool, unchanged since November 2019, remains misaligned with current law. CEST often defaults to employment when a full multi-factorial test is required. With HMRC now facing 56 days to decide on an appeal, and the disputed tax (£583,874) likely already dwarfed by legal costs, this decade-long battle may finally be over. But its legacy will reshape how every UK business assesses employment status.

The Government has launched a pivotal consultation that could render most Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) in workplace harassment and discrimination cases unenforceable. Open until 8 July 2026, the proposed regulations – expected to take effect in 2027 – aim to ban confidentiality clauses that prevent workers from speaking about past misconduct, with only narrow exceptions.

Under the new framework, any term in an employment agreement that stops a worker from disclosing relevant harassment, discrimination, or the employer’s response to it will be automatically void. This covers direct and indirect discrimination, disability and reasonable adjustments, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and harassment (including sexual harassment by third parties like clients).

To remain enforceable, an NDA must qualify as an “excepted agreement” by meeting strict conditions. The consultation focuses on three key safeguards:

1. Independent legal advice – workers must receive written advice from a solicitor or recognised professional explaining the NDA’s terms, effects, and legal limits – including what disclosures cannot be restricted.
2. Informed written consent – after receiving advice, the worker must confirm in writing that they voluntarily wish to enter the NDA.
3. 14-day cooling-off period – workers can withdraw from the NDA without penalty during this period. The Government is consulting on whether this period can be shortened or waived at the worker’s request.

Even valid excepted agreements cannot block certain disclosures. Workers remain free to make whistleblowing reports, speak to lawyers and healthcare professionals, and report crimes to police. Proposed permitted disclosures also include speaking to trade union representatives, authorised intermediaries, and close family members (parents, partners, siblings, children, or grandparents). The Government is also considering allowing disclosures to prospective employers, especially when asked about leaving a previous role.

For organisations, the implications are significant. NDAs will no longer reliably manage reputational risk, and settlement processes will become more formulaic – requiring independent advice, documented consent, and clear, plain-English drafting. HR leaders and in-house counsel should review their NDA templates immediately and shift focus towards preventative strategies: early reporting, robust complaint handling, comprehensive policies, and workforce training.

Larger employers and those in regulated sectors are urged to respond to the consultation before 8 July 2026 to help shape the final regulations.

The Home Office has confirmed plans to significantly broaden the scope of the Right to Work Scheme, with full implementation scheduled for 1 October 2026. The changes will require employers to conduct legally mandated checks on a much wider range of workers, not just traditional employees.

Under the expanded scheme, right to work checks will apply to self-employed contractors, non-employee zero-hours workers, partners in limited liability partnerships, and individuals engaged through online matching platforms or subcontracting arrangements. Previously, these groups fell outside the standard checking regime.

While the enabling legislation is not yet in force, the Home Office has already updated its sponsor guidance to impose stricter obligations on licence holders. Sponsors must now verify that any worker they wish to sponsor, employ, or directly engage—including those who are not direct employees—has permission to work in the UK before any work begins.

Although the term “directly engage” is not explicitly defined, the guidance makes clear it extends beyond traditional employment to cover self-employed contractors and non-sponsored workers. Sponsor licence holders are advised to align their checking practices with the current Employer’s Guide to Right to Work Checks for all relevant groups.

A parallel consultation on a draft code of practice to help employers avoid unlawful discrimination while preventing illegal working is open until 29 April 2026. The draft confirms it will apply to all employment commencing on or after 1 October 2026, strongly indicating this as the go-live date for the full expansion.

All employers—not just sponsor licence holders—should begin preparatory work now. Recommended actions include identifying all categories of individuals providing services to the business, reviewing existing checking processes, assessing contractual arrangements with agencies, strengthening record-keeping, and training HR teams on consistent, non-discriminatory practices.

The expansion marks a fundamental shift in UK workforce compliance, particularly for organisations using indirect or flexible labour arrangements. Early preparation is essential.