header-logo header-logo

11 September 2026
Issue: 8176 / Categories: Legal News , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Employment deadlines lengthen

A longer time limit for employment tribunal claims, new charity law thresholds, property tribunal recruitment and appellate guidance on small-claims costs feature in the latest Civil Way round-up

Writing in NLJ this week, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist, notes that most employment claims can be brought within six months rather than three from 1 October, under the Employment Rights Act 2025. The change aligns the period with redundancy and equal-pay claims. He also highlights a forthcoming drive for 45 fee-paid judges in the First-tier Tribunal’s property chamber, where caseloads are expected to rise sharply.

Elsewhere, the Court of Appeal in Orton v Barclays Bank UK plc confirms that costs on the small-claims track require conduct with no reasonable explanation; simply losing or withdrawing a claim is insufficient. In Tachkani, the Upper Tribunal also rejected an attempt to imply a service-charge reserve fund into leases that did not provide for one.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll