UK employment law June 2025: New law employers need to know for October

Industrial Strategy published

The UK Government has now published its Industrial Strategy. This 160 page policy document proposes the 10 year plan for sector-specific investment. While not legally-binding, the plan can guide policy, regulation and investment decisions (for example, investment in infrastructure to support priority areas). 

Reflecting on the strategy, Ben Willmott, head of public policy at the CIPD, commented "We welcome the ambition to support growth in key high-potential sectors. However, concentrating investment on these sectors alone will not be enough to boost productivity and living standards across the UK, a broader skills and workforce strategy is needed." 

The CIPD's submission to the government’s Industrial Strategy consultation reflects where the CIPD would like to see investment in everyday sectors of the economy. 

New protections for victims of crime

From 1 October 2025 the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (VPA) will come into force across England and Wales. The government have already issued guidance on the regulations. 

The VPA gives more support to victims of crime and in some respects puts existing common law into legislation. In workplaces, this will reaffirm (and in some ways extend) the rights of employees: 

• The VPA applies to NDAs, confidentiality clauses in contracts and settlement agreements. For ease, the following information will use 'NDA' to encompass all of these areas.
• Any NDA signed on or after October 1 2025 will not be enforceable against people who are victims of crime (or who reasonably believe they are) when they report relevant conduct about the alleged crime to specified persons or authorities.
• Currently, even where an NDA is in place, a person can inform prescribed bodies about criminal activity and make protected disclosures (i.e. whistleblowing, or about health and safety risk, or regulatory breaches). The VPA reaffirms that this criminal activity can be disclosed, and it also uses the term “criminal conduct” to broaden the possible disclosures that may be considered. For example, “criminal conduct” would include theft, data protection breaches or concerns about forced labour. 
• Currently, the list of prescribed bodies for whistleblowing purposes is based on a fixed list set out in the legislation. Although other appropriate bodies may be added to the list due to tribunal or court decisions in specific victims of crime cases. The VPA updates this by affirming that disclosures can also be made to victim support services, a person authorised to receive information on behalf of a prescribed body or a close family member.   

There are also lots of things that do not change. For example, whistleblowing regulations still apply for organisational misconduct and the Official Secrets Act 1989 still overseas sensitive information and so forth. 

To prepare for the VPA, particularly the changes to NDAs, businesses in England and Wales should familiarise themselves with the new legislation and ensure that they have reviewed and updated any internal NDA guidance, existing NDAs and contract templates prior to the commencement date. The CIPD provide a guide on appropriate NDA use. 

Refusing onsite meeting to oversee the gardeners at home 

Employee conduct relating to home working formed part of the case of Wicken v Akita Systems Ltd [2025]. Mr Ben Wicken, a former technical director at Akita, claimed constructive unfair dismissal. The overall issues in the case concerned a series of disagreements and deterioration in the relationship between Mr Wicken and the Akita Systems founder and MD Christophe Boudet. Notable to HR practitioners, one of the points of conflict in the case involved Mr Wicken being criticised after requesting an in-person meeting be moved online as he “needed to work from home for the rest of the week because he had work being done in the garden”. Although Mr Wicken eventually attended the meeting in person, tensions remained high and the situation worsened with the directors stating they had lost confidence in him and initiating exit discussions. In response, Mr Wicken submitted a grievance, but the MD appointed his long-standing friend (with no relevant investigation experience) to handle it. Mr Wicken objected, citing bias, and was signed off with stress, then later resigned claiming constructive unfair dismissal. 

The tribunal found in favour of the claimant and criticised the employer’s overall handling of the grievance, especially the involvement of the MD’s close friend.  

With respect to the initial insistence on having a virtual meeting instead of in-person  Mr Wicken stated that in in hindsight, he should have communicated better with Mr Boudet, and should have initially agreed to attend the office for the 1:1 meeting.  

In relation to the 1:1 meeting in particular, the judge stated “the Claimant admitted that his decision to prioritise arrangements with his gardener over attendance at a one-to-one...was a mistake... However, these actions, in the context of the facts found and detailed above, do not constitute “culpable or blameworthy” conduct” and that the company’s overall conduct made his continued employment untenable."

HR practitioners should note that in this case, there was a much broader conflict and dispute, however in relation to the 1:1 meeting, it may be worth considering employees’ requests for home working and any potential indirect discrimination claims that could occur where businesses insist the employee works onsite (see ‘Lawyers comments’ on People Management). The CIPD provide a guide on how to manage hybrid working arrangements. 

Government propose potential savings of AI use 

While not strictly a legal matter, practitioners who are being asked about AI use may wish to consult the results of a government trial, that have been issued this month. The results have been issued following a three month trial of AI across 20,000 civil servants.  

The government propose that the use of the AI tool for 'drafting documents, summarising meetings and more' saved the workers the equivalent of two weeks of work annually. The trial was part of the government's 'Plan for Change' agenda and therefore the data and information from the trial has been made publicly available.