Detriment meaning

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained. Amid concerns about potential consumer harm in the pre-paid funeral plan market, HM Treasury launched a call for evidence on sector regulation in June 2018. Responses indicated that detriment was occurring and that mandatory regulation was required. After evaluating various options, including establishing a new statutory regulator, the UK government concluded that extending Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) oversight to all funeral plan providers was the most effective and proportionate way to strengthen market regulation. On 1 June 2019, HM Treasury opened a consultation to gather stakeholder views on proposed legislative changes to bring every funeral plan provider within the FCA’s jurisdiction. The government issued its consultation response in March 2020, confirming its final policy to amend the regulatory framework accordingly. It should be noted that, under article 59(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, SI 2001/544 (RAO), entering into a funeral plan contract as a provider was already a regulated activity…

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained. The Payment Accounts Directive (Directive 2014/92/EU) (PAD) is designed to improve clarity and comparability for consumers in relation to payment accounts across the EU. Specifically, the PAD: simplifies comparison of charges levied by banks and other providers throughout the EU helps customers to switch payment accounts with ease, and gives every EU consumer the right to open a payment account enabling them to carry out essential functions such as receiving their salary and paying bills The PAD stems from the European Commission’s consultation on retail bank accounts, launched in March 2012, which evaluated the need for action in the areas of fee clarity and comparability, account switching, and access to basic payment accounts. This was preceded by a 2007 inquiry into the retail banking sector that identified these issues as obstacles to consumer choice and mobility. Subsequent attempts by Member States to address the problems independently at national level led...

In this issue: Horizon scanning Recruitment Public sector Pay Tax Protected characteristics Equality of terms (equal pay) Whistleblowing Employee duties and restrictions on competition Unfair dismissal Employment Tribunals Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Employment resources on Lexis+® LexTalk®Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Horizon scanning Government U-turns on day-one unfair dismissal rights and announces compensation cap ‘will be lifted’ On 27 November 2025, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) confirmed that, following a round of ‘constructive conversations’ with trade unions and business representatives, the discussions settled on a ‘workable package’: shortening the unfair dismissal qualifying period from two years to six months, while preserving existing day-one protection against discrimination and for automatically unfair reasons for dismissal. To reinforce these safeguards, the government further pledged that any alteration to the unfair dismissal qualifying period will only be possible through primary legislation,...

Treadwell v Barton Turns Development Ltd [2024] EAT 137 What are the practical implications of this decision? The practical effect is that uncertainty endures as to whether a claimant can contend both that a co-worker imposed the detriment of dismissal and that the employer bears vicarious responsibility for that misconduct, even though the employer could not itself be personally liable for the detriment of dismissal. Pursuing such a formulation assists the claimant owing to the approach to causation, and because compensation for injury to feelings is available on a detriment claim but not for an unfair dismissal claim issued directly against the employer. In this appeal, HHJ Barklem indicates adherence to the unambiguous language of paragraph 91 in Osipov, which points to vicarious liability being capable of arising in these circumstances. That conclusion directly clashes with Bourne J’s judgment in Wicked Vision, which reached the reverse view on the footing that paragraph 91 did not form part of Osipov’s ratio. The consequence is a continuing lack of clarity pending...

Hilton Foods Solutions v Wright [2024] EAT 28 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment turns on a single issue of interpretation: what must an employee do to be treated as having “sought” parental leave so as to gain protection from dismissal under the MAPLE Regulations 1999, SI 1999/3312, reg 20, as enforced by section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996? HHJ Tayler found that whether an individual has “sought” parental leave is a matter for the employment tribunal to decide on the facts, applying the ordinary meaning of the word “sought”, without any special gloss. Serving notice to take parental leave in accordance with paragraphs 1(b) and 3 of Schedule 2 to the MAPLE Regulations will, save in exceptional circumstances, generally show that the employee has “sought” to take parental leave; however, it is not the sole means by which it can be shown that the employee has sought to take parental leave. Accordingly, practitioners should note: employees...

The Pensions Regulator (the Regulator) The Regulator is an arm’s-length public body set up under the Pensions Act 2004 (PeA 2004). Its authority to impose contribution notices and financial support directions appears in PeA 2004, ss 38–50. Although the Act does not use the label, these provisions are widely known as the Regulator’s ‘moral hazard’ powers. Their purpose is to counter the ‘moral hazard’ arising from the Pension Protection Fund (PPF): the possibility that corporate groups might organise their structures so as to heighten exposure within their pension schemes, comfortable that the PPF would intervene if the employer entered insolvency. The principal moral hazard tools—and the only ones exercised so far—are the power to issue a contribution notice (CN) and the power to issue a financial support direction (FSD). A CN compels the recipient to pay a specified amount into a defined benefit occupational pension scheme. A CN can be issued where the criteria in PeA 2004, s 38 are satisfied. These mechanisms exist to deter behaviour that would...

Quick view This Practice Note explores whether an employee can be engaged by two or more employers for the same role at the same time—joint employment (also termed dual employment or multiple employment). It examines the general assumption, the issue of vicarious liability, and the position of agency workers, office-holders and teachers. It also considers the setting of collective bargaining, the effect of TUPE 2006, and tax questions that may arise. Finally, it reviews the factors relevant to written contracts that involve multiple employers. Joint employment is typically discussed in relation to vicarious liability, for instance negligence (see: Vicarious liability, below). Regarding an individual’s employment rights, it appears reasonably clear that the prevailing presumption—that an employee cannot have more than one employer for the same work at the same time—can be displaced in these situations: where the person has two roles with separate employers and the roles are compatible; and where two or more employers act together within a partnership or joint venture ...

This Practice Note provides an overview of the legal framework and practical context for whistleblowing under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). It offers high-level guidance for organisations and supports the drafting of your whistleblowing policy and procedures. It is not a handbook for managing whistleblowing claims, which is an employment law issue. What is whistleblowing? Whistleblowing refers to a worker disclosing information about wrongdoing (ie making a disclosure), usually—though not always—arising in the workplace. For whistleblowing protections to apply, the worker must reasonably believe they are acting in the public interest and that the disclosure points to past, current, or likely future wrongdoing within one or more of these categories: criminal offences (eg fraud) failure to meet a legal obligation miscarriages of justice risks to someone’s health and safety damage to the environment from 6 April 2026, sexual harassment concealment of wrongdoing in these categories Whistleblowing legislation is contained in the ERA 1996, as...

Case No: [ Insert case number ] Between: [ INSERT NAME OF CLAIMANT ] (Claimant) and [ INSERT NAME OF RESPONDENT ] (Respondent) [ CLAIMANT’S OR RESPONDENT’S OR AGREED ] LIST OF ISSUES Jurisdiction—time limits In respect of the detriment claim, was the Claimant’s claim lodged within time, having regard to the ‘stop the clock’ effect of early conciliation? (Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), ss 48(3)(a), 207B) If not, was it not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present the claim in time? (ERA 1996, s 48(3)(b)) If so, was the claim made within such additional period as was reasonable? (ERA 1996, s 48(3)(b)) In respect of the dismissal claim, was the Claimant’s claim lodged in time, taking into account the ‘stop the clock’ provisions relating to early conciliation? (ERA 1996, ss 111(2)(a), 207B) If not, was it not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to submit the claim in time? (ERA 1996, s 111(2)(b)) If so,...

[ Confidential and strictly private ] [ Address ] [ Date ] Dear [ insert name(s) of relevant individual(s) at the transferor ], Proposed transfer of [ enter details ] to [ enter name of transferee ] I refer to the proposed [ disposal of your enterprise to [ enter name of transferee ] OR delegation of your [ identify business function ] to [ enter name of transferee ] OR ending of your agreement to...

Time off for pension scheme trustees As a pension scheme trustee, you are entitled to take time away from work in order to: carry out your functions [including time to prepare for and attend trustee meetings, time to progress specific projects assigned to you, and time to appropriately evaluate and respond to any unforeseen events]; and undertake relevant training. A reasonable amount of time off will be permitted. When judging how much to allow, the Company will consider: how much time is ordinarily needed to perform the functions or complete training; the time required for the particular duties or training at issue; and the effect your absence may have on the Company. This time off will be paid. [You can complain to an employment tribunal if you are unreasonably refused such time off, suffer a detriment, or are dismissed because you...

Duty to make reasonable adjustments The Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) establishes a duty to make reasonable adjustments (referred to below as ‘the duty’), which contains three distinct requirements. The third requires that, where a disabled person would, without the provision of an auxiliary aid, face a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter when compared with people who are not disabled, such steps as are reasonable must be taken to supply the auxiliary aid. The situations in which the duty arises differ across workplace settings. Accordingly, the precise circumstances that engage the duty will not be uniform across all settings. For all three requirements, the duty is triggered only where a disabled individual is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non‑disabled people ‘in relation to a “relevant matter”’, and what counts as a ‘relevant matter’ (as defined in EqA 2010, Sch 8 Pt 1) varies according to the particular type of workplace. As a result, application of the duty is context‑specific to the workplace in question....

As a rule, the seller is entitled to the entire purchase price and, save for limited exceptions, holds an equitable lien over the property until the sum is settled in full. This remains the case even where a receipt has been issued. See Practice Note: Unpaid vendor’s lien. In some situations, the buyer may contend that the seller is estopped from pursuing the outstanding balance, which will usually depend on whether they relied on the completion statement to their detriment... See also Commentary: Vendor’s lien: Halsbury’s Laws of England [960] Declaration and enforcement of lien: Atkin’s Court Forms [119]

For guidance on safeguarding confidentiality in the workplace, see Practice Note: Confidential information and trade secrets in employment. For broader support on addressing misconduct, consult the following Practice Notes: Managing conduct Dismissing fairly for conduct reasons Reason for dismissal—conduct Protection from dismissal Under section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992), a dismissal will be automatically unfair if the principal reason for ending employment is that the worker: has taken part in, or intended to take part in, the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time has used, or intended to use, trade union services at an appropriate time For these purposes, ‘an appropriate time’ is: a time outside the worker’s normal working hours, or a time during working hours when the employer has agreed they may engage in union activities or make use of union services The...