Employment Edit: 29 April 2026

Legal updates

Right to work checks expanded

Earlier this month, the Home Office launched a consultation into the draft updated code of practice for employers on avoiding unlawful discrimination while preventing illegal working.

The updated code is set to cover all employers who are currently required to carry out right to work checks and those who will be brought into scope by the planned expansion of the right to work scheme later this year. Under that planned expansion, the prevention of illegal working regime (which underpins employers’ right to work checks) will require organisations to confirm that individuals in the gig economy and on zero‑hours arrangements have the right to work in the UK before they are engaged to work on the organisation’s behalf. For many organisations, this reform will significantly increase their obligations, bringing new parts of their workforce into scope for right to work checks for the first time, although it is worth noting that sponsors are already required to carry out right to work checks across a broader cohort.

In this blog post, Megan Summers and Georgia Hanson consider what the expanded right to work requirements mean for onboarding processes.

Guaranteed hours contracts

Four trade bodies sent a joint letter to the government last week detailing their concerns about the new right to guaranteed hours contracts that is due to be implemented next year. Under the reform (which is contained in the ERA 2025), eligible workers on zero and “low” hours contracts will have the right to be offered a contract reflecting the hours that they regularly work.

In their letter, the trade bodies (the British Retail Consortium, Food and Drink Federation, Recruitment and Employment Confederation and UKHospitality) state that “poorly designed guaranteed hours measures” could push “employers to reduce hiring, limit hours or withdraw flexible roles altogether, denying work to those who need it most, or moving to less secure, more casual models of engagement”. They set out proposals to address these concerns, including a proposed six-month reference period for assessing whether a worker has regularly worked additional hours and setting the “low” hours threshold at 8 hours.

We take a closer look at the right to guaranteed hours contracts on our ERA hub, linked below.

Post-dismissal PHI payments

The Court of Session in Scotland has held that an employer’s obligation to make ill‑health payments can continue after dismissal.

The claimant’s contract provided for long‑term ill‑health payments at 75% of salary until recovery or age 65, but the employer failed to put the related insurance in place and later dismissed her for ill health. The claimant brought a claim for unlawful deductions for wages during her employment alleging that her employer had not made the promised ill health payments since she first became entitled to them. The claimant later applied to amend her claim to also cover post-dismissal ill-health payments, relying on an implied contractual term not to dismiss her due to an inability to work whilst she remained entitled to the benefits.

Overturning the tribunal and EAT, the Court ruled that post‑dismissal payments could still constitute “wages” for unlawful deduction purposes and that the purported dismissal did not impact on the employer’s contractual obligation to honour the ill health payments. The Court sent the case back to the tribunal to decide whether the claimant still meets the eligibility criteria and, if so, how much she is owed. 

The case underlines the importance of careful drafting of employment contract terms relating to insurance or ill health benefits and of managing ill-health dismissals with those arrangements in mind.  

(McMahon v AXA ICAS Ltd)

Upcoming events