Employment Law update - April 2026

In the month’s update we report on elements of the Employment Rights Act that are now in force, the Employment Tribunal statistics revealing a historically high number of claims and a case involving an employer’s liability for withdrawing a job offer.

• Employment Rights Act - the provisions that are now in force
• Annual rate increases
• Employment Tribunal statistics: more claims
• Withdrawal of a job offer can be a breach of contract

Annual rate increases

The usual annual increases have taken place

• Maximum compensatory award for Unfair Dismissal: £123,543 (until its removal in January 2027)
• Limit on a week’s pay for statutory purposes (eg redundancy): £751
• Statutory Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Shared Parental, Parental Bereavement and neonatal Care Pay: £194.32
• Statutory Sick Pay: £123.25
• Vento bands for injury to feelings awards in discrimination cases:
  
  • Lower band: £1,300 - £12,600
  • Middle band: £12,600 - £37,700
  • Upper band: £37,700 - £62,900
• National Minimum Wage:
  • Apprentices: £8.00
  • 16 – 17: £8.00
  • 18 – 20: £10.85
  • 21+: £12.71

Employment Tribunal statistics: more claims

The latest quarterly statistics published by the Employment Tribunal Service revealed a significant increase in claims. The figures are for the last quarter of 2025 and show that, in comparison with the same quarter in 2024, there was a 54% increase in single claims and the Tribunal’s open cases increased by 49%. These open cases stood at 58,000, the highest level since the previous peak of 44,000 in 2020. 
 
The Tribunals do not currently have the resources to deal with this volume of claims and we are seeing significant backlogs in hearing times, with some cases being listed for 2029.

Claims generated by new rights under the Employment Rights Act are only likely to add to the backlog. The Government have said that they acknowledge that a solution is needed, but we haven’t yet seen what this is.

Withdrawal of a job offer can be a breach of contract

The case of Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd offers lessons to employers making, and withdrawing, job offers.

Mr Kankanalapalli applied for and was offered the role of Project Manager with Loesche Energy Systems Ltd in September 2022. The written offer set out all key terms, including salary, hours, start date and benefits, and stated that the offer was “subject to” satisfactory references, a right to work check and the successful completion of a six month probation period. No express notice period was included.

The claimant accepted the offer by email, stating “Please take it that I accept the offer”, and the company responded positively. The claimant completed the requested onboarding documentation, including reference details and right to work evidence (with originals to be checked on the first day). He also made arrangements in reliance on the role, including booking flights and preparing for relocation.

Shortly before the proposed start date, the employer informed the claimant that the project notice to proceed had been delayed and later withdrew the offer altogether, stating that it was unable to offer the role commencing on 1 November 2022. No contract of employment was ever issued. The claimant brought a breach of contract claim, arguing that the offer had been accepted and that it was withdrawn without reasonable notice.

The Employment Tribunal accepted that the offer had been accepted but concluded there was no binding contract because the “subject to” conditions had not been satisfied. Alternatively, it held that if a contract did exist, it was terminable without notice as the claimant had less than a month’s service.

The EAT allowed the appeal. It held that the ET had erred in its approach to the conditional nature of the offer and to implied notice.

First, the EAT found that the ET had wrongly treated the conditions as conditions precedent, without properly considering the claimant’s argument that they were conditions subsequent. The wording “subject to” did not, of itself, determine the nature of the conditions. On proper construction, and looking at the surrounding correspondence and documentation, all three conditions (including probation) were conditions subsequent, meaning a binding contract existed but could later be terminated if the conditions were not met. This is different to conditions precedent which are conditions that must be satisfied for a contract to be formed.

Second, the EAT found that the ET had erred in implying a notice term by reference to the employer’s standard terms and what might have happened later. The question of implied notice had to be assessed at the time the contract was formed, not with hindsight. Applying orthodox principles, a term requiring reasonable notice should be implied.  The claimant was travelling to a different country to take up the post, the interview process had taken several months, the position was a senior one of a project manager and the company had suggested that the claimant take on a 12-month rental agreement. On this basis, reasonable notice was three months, and the company was in breach by terminating without it. 

This decision is a stark reminder that accepted job offers can create binding contracts, even where expressed to be “subject to” checks. Employers should not assume that conditional wording gives an unfettered right to withdraw without liability.

When making job offers, employers should:

• Be clear whether conditions are intended to prevent a contract forming (conditions precedent) or to allow termination of an existing contract (conditions subsequent)
• If an employer requires an unrestricted right to withdraw, this must be spelled out clearly
• Silence on notice is risky: this decision would have been different if the offer letter had been clear about the notice period that would have applied during a probationary period