In a regular monthly article, we review the major employment law developments from the previous month to bring you up-to-date. We cover interesting recent cases, legislative developments and other changes in this area.
Please note: this article is up-to-date as at 28 February 2026. Employment law changes very quickly and our next article will include further updates.
Our review this month covers four cases. In Mulumba v Partners Group (UK) Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal looked at whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) had correctly refused an appellant an extension of time to appeal against two employment tribunal (ET) decisions. Our second case is Sabourin v BT Group plc, where the EAT had to decide if the ET was wrong not to consider whether the employer's failure to take account of the employee's performance in the two weeks after he was given a final written warning affected the fairness of his dismissal. Next we turn to Lamb v Teva UK Ltd. The issue here was whether procedural shortcomings in an investigation made a dismissal unfair following a potentially fatal health and safety incident. Lastly, had an ET erred by applying a 100% Polkey reduction to a compensatory award for unfair dismissal? This was the issue before the EAT in Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd.
Ms Mulumba brought various ET claims. She wanted to appeal against two ET decisions and lodged her first appeal at 11.49pm on the day of the deadline. It was treated as having been received...
Global News Hour at 6 BC Mounting pressure after Vancouver Mayor's false claims about city councillor More Videos 0 seconds of 0 secondsVolume 0% Press shift question mark to access a list of keybo...