Day: 15 January 2026

‘TUPE has a reputation for difficulty and complexity in some quarters, which the recent decisions reviewed in this note—Sean Pong Tyres Ltd v Moore1 and ABC v (1) Huntercombe (No. 12) Limited (2) Active Young People Limited (3) Dr Veerraju Banisetti (4) Dr Mark Tattersall2—may well do little to dispel. These decisions address the question of how the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE)3 engage with the vicarious liability of a transferor employer for the acts and omissions of one of its employees in circumstances where, subsequent to the events giving rise to the relevant claim, the employment of the tortfeasor employee transfers from the transferor to a transferee pursuant to a ‘relevant transfer’4 for the purposes of TUPE and either the employment of the claimant does not transfer to the transferee – because the claimant’s employment terminates for reasons unconnected with the transfer or the claimant is not “in scope” to transfer – or the claimant is a third party without an employment relationship relating to the transferor and therefore has a non-employment claim against the transferor. More specifically, on a relevant transfer, does a transferor’s vicarious liability for a transferring tortfeasor employee’s acts and omissions transfer with that tortfeasor employee to the transferee? This note seeks to assess, synthesise, and expand upon the reasoning adopted in, and the policy justifications for, the Pong and Huntercombe decisions, which, taken together, held that in such circumstances the transferor’s (vicarious) liability to the claimant did not transfer to the transferee. It also addresses the consideration in those cases of the prior decision in Doane v Wimbledon Football Club Ltd5 which, in contrast, held that a transferor’s vicarious liability for a transferring employee’s tortious acts pre-transfer did transfer to the transferee on a relevant transfer.’

Full Story

Industrial Law Journal, 12th January 2026

Source: doi.org

‘A recent decision by the Upper Tribunal (UT) underlines the importance for UK taxpayers in carefully framing the proposed conditions when seeking suspension of an HMRC penalty, an expert has said.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 14th January 2026

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com

‘Since the withdrawal of legal aid for private family law disputes post-LASPO (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders), separating couples have increasingly been encouraged to resolve their own financial disputes through private ordering. Although over half of financial arrangements made by divorcees are settled by the couple themselves, limited empirical insight exists into how such agreements are negotiated and whether they achieve substantive fairness. This article draws on qualitative research with 32 divorced military wives to examine the role of legal myths in shaping privately negotiated settlements. Participants report relying on heuristic understandings of law – such as ‘fairness equals a 50:50 split’, ‘what’s mine, is mine’, and ‘his money, he decides’ – which diverge significantly from the legal principles of needs, sharing, and compensation. These myths serve to guide and constrain financial negotiations of separating couples, often at the expense of the financially weaker party. This article argues that such myths are symptomatic of broader neoliberal and gendered ideologies that underpin current family law practices. In light of current debates around reforming financial remedies law in England and Wales, this article calls for renewed scrutiny of informal settlements and considers whether privately negotiated financial settlements subject to greater judicial oversight might better promote fairness in family breakdown.’

Full Story

Law, Policy and the Family, 30th December 2026

Source: academic.oup.com

‘Recent policy rhetoric underlines the value of listening to those with first-hand experience of the family courts to better understand how the system could be adapted to benefit parents’ participation. This paper examines the participative experiences of 28 parents who were involved in recent care proceedings in England and Wales, with a focus on the procedural justice concept of voice. In-depth, narrative interviews highlight embedded, systemic barriers to parents’ participation, including the formality of legal language, procedure, and courtroom layout. Parents’ assessments of their legal representation and their interactions with the judge are important markers of whether they felt heard in the proceedings. The wider implications of findings are examined, including the gulf that exists in interpretations of ‘voice’ between professionals and parents as parties in legal proceedings. Adaptations to professional practice and court processes to better accommodate parent voice are considered.’

Full Story

Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 14th January 2026

Source: www.tandfonline.com

‘A shoplifter has been jailed and banned from all Aldi stores in an Essex district after stealing nearly £800 worth of meat, including premium wagyu steaks.’

Full Story

The Independent, 14th January 2026

Source: www.independent.co.uk

‘The way UK product liability laws could be modernised has become clearer after the terms of reference for a review of the current framework was published.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 14th January 2026

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com

‘Zara Yusuf, of Three Stone Chambers, considers the recent Ombudsman determinations on the scope of the trustees’ responsibility for statutory transfers of pension benefits, and asks whether the approach adopted is overly restrictive.’

Full Story

Pensions Barrister, 15th January 2026

Source: www.pensionsbarrister.com

‘A potential government U-turn on changes to jury trials risks breaking a justice system on the brink of collapse, the new victims’ commissioner for England and Wales has said.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 14th January 2026

Source: www.theguardian.com