Hi {first name},

Here's our latest Employment newsletter, we hope you will find it useful. If you have any feedback, please send it through by replying to this email.

Join us at the Michelmores Employment Law Conference 2026 on 18 November

(Exeter and Virtual)

Click here to find out more and to RSVP.

Employment tribunal time limits double: what employers need to know

For decades, the three-month deadline on Employment Tribunal claims has been strictly enforced by Tribunals. A claim brought even slightly late, opened a claimant up to the very real risk of their claim being struck out.

On 1 October 2026, section 152 and Schedule 12 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 extended the limitation period for most claims from three to six months. The change applies to a wide range of claims including unfair dismissal, discrimination, detriment claims, unlawful deductions from wages, working time claims and TUPE-related claims. Equal pay and statutory redundancy payment claims already carried a six month limitation period and remain unchanged.

At first glance, the reform appears straightforward, however, for employers the consequences are more significant than simply adding another three months to the calendar.

When does the new limitation period apply?

Firstly, the six-month limitation period only applies where the relevant act, omission or dismissal takes place on or after 1 October 2026. Employers should note that claims arising from events before that date generally remain subject to the previous three-month deadline. Where a claimant alleges a continuing course of conduct, the limitation period runs from the last act As a result, an allegation involving conduct stretching back months or even years may still benefit from the new six-month period if the final alleged act occurred after 1 October 2026.

When this change is considered alongside the Acas early conciliation period, that was extended to twelve weeks in December 2025, employers could in practice be waiting far longer than six months to discover whether litigation is coming.

Practically speaking, if a claimant waits until late in the six-month limitation period, uses the full twelve weeks of Early Conciliation and benefits from the month-long statutory extension in section 207B(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, Employers could be waiting a full ten months before any claim is lodged.  When tribunal processing delays are considered on top of that, employers may not receive a notice of claim form until close to a year after the events in question.

The impact of the change

The Government intends the extended limitation period to encourage parties to resolve disputes internally or through Acas before a claim is issued. It will also give employees more time to understand their position, obtain advice and prepare their case. Employers may therefore receive fewer hastily prepared claims, but should expect those that are issued to be more carefully considered and developed.

How employers should prepare

Employers should create clear and comprehensive records at the time events occur, while recollections remain fresh. Investigations, grievance meetings, informal discussions and the reasons for key decisions should all be documented to a consistently high standard.

A key priority will be preserving relevant evidence for longer. As many employers designed their retention practices around the previous three-month limitation period, they should review automatic deletion settings and retention periods for messaging platforms, CCTV footage and personnel files. Effective retention processes will be essential to meeting Tribunal disclosure obligations. If relevant evidence has been routinely deleted and cannot be produced, a Tribunal may draw adverse inferences.

Overall, the extended time limit gives employers a valuable opportunity to review their record-keeping and evidence-retention practices. If you would like to discuss how the change may affect your organisation, or have any questions, contact the Employment Law team at Michelmores.

Merriman v 1st Staff Limited and others: EAT confirms potential personal liability for failures to make reasonable adjustments 

In Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and others [2026] EAT 128, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") overturned the Employment Tribunal's decision to strike out reasonable adjustments claims made against individual respondents, which the Employment Tribunal had made on the basis that the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments rests with the employer.

Background

Ms Merriman was engaged by a recruitment agency, 1st Staff Limited, to provide one-to-one tuition to a student. Following a period of ill health, Ms Merriman requested adjustments to her working arrangements as she said that her disabilities of osteoarthritis, anxiety and depression made it difficult for her to travel to provide in person tuition and work fixed tuition times. Her requested adjustments included providing online tuition rather than in person. Employees of 1st Staff Limited were involved in discussions concerning Ms Merriman's requested adjustments. The proposed arrangements were ultimately not implemented and Ms Merriman's work tutoring the student came to an end. Ms Merriman subsequently brought claims against 1st Staff Limited and a number of individual respondents who worked for it, including claims relating to an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Employment Tribunal Decision

The Employment Tribunal found that Ms Merriman was disabled for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. The Employment Tribunal allowed her claim that 1st Staff Limited had failed to make reasonable adjustments to continue, however, it struck out the equivalent claims against the individual respondents (who were employees of 1st Staff Limited). Its reasoning was that a failure to make reasonable adjustments was not a claim which could be brought against individuals because the duty itself rested with the employer. Ms Merriman appealed that decision.

EAT Decision

The EAT upheld the appeal. The EAT accepted that the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments is imposed on the employer. It also acknowledged that sections 109 and 110 of the Equality Act 2010 provide for acts carried out by employees and agents to be attributed to an employer, and in certain circumstances, for the individual employee or agent to be personally liable. The EAT considered that, although the reasonable adjustments duty sits with the employer or principal, a company necessarily acts through its employees and agents. Where an employee carries out an act which amounts to a breach of the employer's duty, the statutory provisions governing employer and individual liability may therefore be engaged.

The EAT found that the Employment Tribunal had been wrong to conclude that a reasonable adjustments claim could not be pursued against an individual simply because the underlying duty was imposed on the employer. The EAT ordered that the relevant individual respondents be rejoined to the reasonable adjustments claim.

Key Takeaways for Employers

Managers, HR professionals and other employees involved in considering or implementing reasonable adjustments should be mindful that their own actions may potentially give rise to personal liability.

Employers should therefore ensure that:

Q: We have discovered that an employee is undertaking a second job while on long-term sick leave. Can we dismiss them?

A: Not automatically. The key question is whether the outside work is inconsistent with the reason for their sickness absence or breaches their contractual obligations. Employers should investigate the circumstances carefully before taking any action. For example, an employee signed off with a back injury who is carrying out physically demanding work elsewhere may raise legitimate concerns, whereas an employee absent with work-related stress who undertakes limited work for another organisation may have a reasonable explanation. Employers should avoid assumptions and obtain medical evidence where appropriate before reaching conclusions about an employee's fitness for work. A full and fair investigation should be conducted before deciding whether disciplinary action or dismissal is appropriate.