What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm

Employment Law in the UK within your reach Marta Inkin, London (2026)

27/03/2026

Changes to Employment Law in the UK from April 2026

From April 2026, further changes to employment law will come into force in the United Kingdom as part of the wider reform introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. This reform is being implemented over several years, but even at this stage the direction is clear – increased protection for employees and improved access to basic employment rights.

Below are the key changes.

1. Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) – a practical and significant change

Changes to statutory sick pay are among the most noticeable in everyday working life.

From 6 April 2026:
• SSP is payable from the first day of sickness (the “waiting days” are removed),
• the Lower Earnings Limit is abolished,
• SSP is set at £123.25 per week or 80% of normal weekly earnings (whichever is lower).

What does this mean in practice?

Previously, many individuals:
• received no pay for the first few days of sickness, or
• did not qualify for SSP at all (for example, due to low earnings).

Following these changes:
• almost all workers will qualify for SSP,
• financial support will begin immediately, rather than after a delay.

This is particularly important for those working in low-paid roles, part-time positions, or irregular hours.

2. Paternity leave – a full “day one” right

From 6 April 2026, paternity leave becomes a right available from the first day of employment.

Key changes:
• removal of the 26-week qualifying period,
• the ability to take paternity leave even after using Shared Parental Leave,
• additional rights for partners in specific circumstances (for example, where the child’s mother dies).

Why is this important?

In practice:
• newly hired employees no longer need to “wait” to qualify,
• the right becomes more flexible and better aligned with real family situations.

This represents a broader shift in approach – employment rights are no longer tied to length of service, but treated as fundamental entitlements.

3. Parental leave – removal of the service requirement

A similar change applies to parental leave.

From April 2026:
• parental leave becomes a “day one” right,
• the previous requirement of one year’s service is removed.

What remains unchanged?
• entitlement of up to 18 weeks of unpaid leave per child,
• leave can be taken up until the child turns 18.

Practical impact

This is particularly relevant for:
• employees changing jobs,
• individuals with short service,
• parents returning to the workforce.

Previously, changing jobs often meant losing eligibility – this issue is now resolved.

4. Increase in the National Minimum Wage

From 1 April 2026, the National Minimum Wage rates increase:
• £12.71 per hour – for workers aged 21 and over,
• £10.85 – for those aged 18–20,
• £8.00 – for those aged 16–17 and apprentices.

What does this mean?
• a direct increase in earnings for workers,
• increased cost pressure on employers.

While this is clearly positive for employees, it may also lead to indirect effects on the labour market.

5. Direction of reform – more “day one” rights

All of the above changes reflect a clear trend: moving away from linking employment rights to length of service.

Instead:
• key rights (such as leave and basic protections) are available from the start of employment,
• the system becomes more employee-focused.

At the same time, it is important to note that:
• the reform is being introduced in stages,
• further significant changes (such as unfair dismissal and zero-hours contracts) are expected in 2027.

Summary

The changes coming into force in April 2026 are not a complete overhaul overnight, but they represent a significant step towards reshaping employment law in the UK.

The key points are:
• SSP available from the first day of sickness,
• paternity and parental leave from day one of employment,
• an increase in the National Minimum Wage,
• an overall shift towards stronger employee protection.

In practice, this means a system that is more accessible and predictable for employees, while placing greater obligations on employers.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

21/03/2026

Employment Tribunal Time Limits – Why You Can Lose Your Case Before It Even Starts

In employment law, most people focus on what actually happened: whether the dismissal was unfair, whether the employer acted unlawfully, whether there are witnesses or documents.

In practice, however, something much simpler — and much more unforgiving — often decides the outcome.

Not who is right.

Not who tells the truth.

👉 But whether you acted in time.

It is entirely possible to have a strong case in the Employment Tribunal and still lose it at the very first stage — simply because the claim was brought too late.

📌 A short deadline that decides everything

In most employment claims, the rule is:

👉 3 months minus 1 day from the relevant act

This applies to claims such as:
• unfair dismissal
• unlawful deductions from wages
• breach of contract

So if something happened on 1 January, the deadline would normally be 31 March

On the surface, that seems straightforward.

But very quickly a critical question arises:

👉 what exactly is “the relevant act”?

⚠️ The Tribunal will not “forgive” delay

Many people assume that if their case is strong, the Tribunal will still consider it. That is not how the system works.

If a claim is presented outside the time limit, the Tribunal may simply reject it without considering the merits.

There will be no review of evidence.

No witnesses.

No assessment of fairness.

In many cases, the Tribunal will not even have jurisdiction to hear the claim if it is out of time

This is where a large number of cases are effectively lost.

⚖️ What about discrimination claims (Equality Act 2010)?

This is where things become more nuanced — and often misunderstood.

Discrimination claims under the Equality Act are also subject to:

👉 3 months minus 1 day

However, the way time is assessed is different in two important respects.

First, discrimination cases often involve what is known as a “continuing act”.

This means that where there is an ongoing pattern of behaviour (for example, repeated discriminatory treatment or harassment), the time limit may run from the last act in the series, rather than the first.

Second — and crucially — the Tribunal has a broader discretion.

It may allow a claim to proceed out of time if it considers it:

👉 “just and equitable” to do so

This is a significantly wider test than in unfair dismissal cases.

However, in practice, it should not be relied upon. It is discretionary, and outcomes are often unpredictable.

🧠 Why this makes such a difference

In unfair dismissal claims, the key question is usually whether it was:

👉 “reasonably practicable” to bring the claim in time

This is a narrow test and often difficult to satisfy.

In discrimination claims, by contrast, the Tribunal can take a broader view of the circumstances, including:
• what the claimant knew and when
• whether there was confusion about their position
• whether the employer contributed to that confusion
• the overall fairness of allowing the claim to proceed

That flexibility can help — but it also introduces uncertainty.

🔍 A real example from practice

In one of my recent cases, the issue of time limits became central.

The employer argued that the claimant had been dismissed on 14 April 2025, and that the claim had therefore been brought significantly out of time

If that date had been correct, the claim would indeed have been struck out.

However, the factual picture told a different story.

There was no clear evidence that the dismissal had ever been properly communicated to the claimant. The parties continued to communicate after April, payslips were still being issued, and the employer’s conduct suggested that the employment relationship had not in fact been brought to an end at that time.

It was only several months later that the employer first asserted that the claimant had been dismissed back in April.

💥 The moment that changed everything

In the meantime, the claimant — left without clarity and without income — resigned on 18 August 2025.

That date became crucial.

If there had been no effective earlier dismissal, then the resignation was the point at which the employment relationship actually ended

That, in turn, meant that the time limit ran from August, not April.
The result was straightforward:

👉 the claim was in time

Notably, the employer ultimately withdrew its limitation argument and accepted that the relevant date was the resignation.

🧩 Why this matters — especially in discrimination cases

This example illustrates how complex limitation issues can become.

It is not simply a matter of counting three months. It requires identifying:
• when the employment actually ended
• whether a dismissal was effectively communicated
• whether there was an ongoing course of conduct

In discrimination claims, this becomes even more important, because arguments around a “continuing act” or the Tribunal’s discretion can significantly affect the outcome.

A case that appears to be out of time at first glance may, on proper analysis, still be viable.

⏸️ The role of ACAS Early Conciliation

ACAS Early Conciliation often adds another layer of confusion.
It is true that the process pauses the limitation clock, but it does not reset it

If the starting point has been incorrectly identified, ACAS will not fix the problem.

This is one of the most common mistakes in practice.

🚨 The real issue — incorrect assumptions

In many cases, the problem is not a lack of legal knowledge, but a series of understandable assumptions.

People wait to see what their employer will do.

They wait for the outcome of an appeal.

They hope the situation will resolve itself.

All the while, time continues to run.

And by the time advice is sought, it may already be too late.

Conclusion

The Employment Tribunal system can provide meaningful protection for employees.

But it is also highly procedural and strictly governed by time limits.

It is entirely possible to have:
• a strong claim
• clear evidence
• obvious unfairness

and still lose the case because it was brought too late.
In discrimination cases, the position can be more flexible — but also more complex.

👉 The key point is this:

time limits are not a formality.

👉 They are often the most important issue in the entire case.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates: https://www.martainkin.co.uk/legal-updates

25/02/2026

Royal Mail vs. Mr Williams – A Landmark Reminder of Employers’ Duties to Disabled Workers

The case of Mr D. Williams v Royal Mail Group Limited is a powerful recent example of how UK employment law protects workers with disabilities — especially when workplace changes could worsen their mental health.

Below is a simple, engaging breakdown suitable for a general audience.

What Happened?

Mr Williams had worked as a postman in Greater Manchester since he was 15. For decades, he started work at 5:00 a.m., a routine that became essential to his well being because:

• early hours helped him manage autism and anxiety,
• it reduced interactions with crowds,
• and it allowed him to finish early and support his wife, who has long term health issues.

When he returned from sickness absence in 2023, Royal Mail notified him that the standard start time had changed. He would now have to begin at 06:45 (or 07:30 on Tuesdays) instead of 05:00. The company claimed earlier starts no longer fit with the updated operational structure.

The Tribunal’s View

The Employment Tribunal ruled that Royal Mail failed to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee, as required under the Equality Act 2010.

Here are the key points:

1️⃣ The company could have adjusted his hours
The tribunal found that it would have been reasonable to:
• allow Mr Williams to start work at 6:00 a.m.,
• offer a transition period where he could temporarily return to 5:00 a.m. starts,
• reconfigure his delivery route so that a shorter round fit within earlier hours.

Royal Mail has complex route planning software and revises its delivery walks regularly — so adapting one worker’s route wasn’t an unreasonable burden.

2️⃣ The “USO” defence didn’t hold up
Royal Mail argued that altering his shift would breach the Universal Service Obligation (its duty to deliver mail within set timeframes).

But the tribunal noted:
• the employer hadn’t provided evidence that adapting Mr Williams’ start time would compromise the USO,
• minor redistribution of tasks among colleagues is not a valid reason to deny adjustments.

3️⃣ Harassment claim dismissed, but communication was poorly handled
Mr Williams said he felt harassed by repeated letters and emails demanding he “change his hours” while off sick.
The Tribunal agreed the messages were unwanted and understandably stressful — but they did not meet the legal threshold for disability related harassment.

This is because:
• the communication wasn’t related to his disability,
• and did not objectively create a hostile or degrading environment.

4️⃣ Compensation awarded
Because Royal Mail failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments, the Tribunal awarded Mr Williams £12,925.59 for injury to feelings. It also recommended that Royal Mail formally confirm a suitable early start time.

Why This Case Matters

This case is an important reminder for both employees and employers:

➡️ For employees
If you have a disability — including autism, depression, or anxiety — you can request:
• modified hours,
• reduced workload,
• different tasks,
• phased returns,
• or other adaptations.

These aren’t “favours” — they are legal rights when failure to adjust would put you at a substantial disadvantage.

➡️ For employers
A “one-size-fits-all” approach to scheduling or duties is not defensible if:
• a disability is known or ought reasonably to be known, and
• simple adjustments could prevent disadvantage.

Employers must show clear evidence if they claim a proposed adjustment is not workable. “Inconvenience” is not a lawful excuse.

The Big Lesson

The tribunal recognised something many workplaces overlook:
Consistency and routine can be vital reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent workers.

Royal Mail had the systems and resources to accommodate Mr Williams — it simply didn’t use them. As a result, the company breached the Equality Act.

This ruling reinforces that supporting disabled employees isn’t just compassionate — it’s the law.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

07/02/2026

Costs in Employment Tribunal Proceedings – Lessons from Prasad v Epsom and St Helier Hospital NHS Trust [2026] EAT 23

The case of Dr Prasad against Epsom and St Helier Hospital NHS Trust is an example in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed that even in discrimination and whistleblowing cases - areas where costs orders are relatively rare—it is still possible for the losing party to be ordered to pay a significant amount when their conduct in the proceedings has been unreasonable, or when parts of their claims had no realistic prospect of success from the outset. The EAT upheld the Employment Tribunal’s order requiring the claimant to pay £20,000 in costs.

Dr Prasad was a consultant cardiologist employed by the hospital from 2010 to 2020. During her employment she raised concerns about patient safety, and her relationship with another doctor deteriorated significantly. Both sides made allegations about each other’s clinical performance. In her claims, she alleged race and s*x discrimination, victimisation, harassment and detriments related to whistleblowing. In February 2022, the Tribunal dismissed all her claims.

After the dismissal, the employer applied for costs, arguing that some of the allegations were fundamentally flawed - for example, the claimant alleged s*x discrimination while comparing herself to a woman, or race discrimination while comparing herself to someone of the same race. Other claims had no prospect of success because they lacked factual foundations or there was no evidence to support them. The Tribunal also noted that the way the claimant conducted the litigation led to excessively large bundles and the need to call many witnesses, which significantly increased the length, cost and complexity of the proceedings.

The appeal court carefully analysed the rules that allow costs to be awarded when a party behaves unreasonably or when their claims have no reasonable prospect of success.

The EAT concluded that the ET had correctly assessed both grounds: some claims were doomed to fail from the moment they were submitted, and the claimant’s conduct during the litigation—especially after disclosure and witness evidence—was objectively unreasonable. The court confirmed that there is no requirement to link specific elements of the costs to specific pieces of unreasonable conduct; it is enough to show that the way the case was conducted contributed to an overall increase in costs and complexity.

Dr Prasad also challenged the fact that the costs hearing went ahead without her. She had submitted several applications for postponement but had not supported them with adequate medical evidence, and on the day of the hearing she did not attend and did not contact the Tribunal. The EAT held that the ET acted properly: it made attempts to establish her situation and ultimately decided to proceed. The court stated that refusing to postpone the hearing was within the ET’s discretion, and that unexplained non attendance cannot be allowed to halt proceedings.

This judgment clearly demonstrates that although costs orders in employment cases remain the exception, they do happen, and the Tribunal will not hesitate to make them where claims are formulated on obviously incorrect assumptions or where the litigation is conducted in a way that generates unnecessary cost and burden for the parties and for the court.

This is especially relevant in discrimination and whistleblowing cases, where serious allegations must be grounded in solid factual foundations. The judgment is a reminder that even litigants in person must exercise basic care and diligence when constructing and maintaining their claims, and that pursuing allegations based on incorrect factual premises can lead to significant financial consequences.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

17/01/2026

Employment Rights Act 2025: The Most Important Changes Employers Must Prepare For

The Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025), which received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025, introduces major reforms that will be phased in throughout 2026–2027.

Below is a clear breakdown of the key, high impact changes that employers and employees need to prepare for now.

1. Unfair Dismissal – Shorter Qualifying Period and No Compensation Cap

Effective from 1 January 2027:

• the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims will drop from 2 years to 6 months
• the statutory cap on the compensatory award will be removed

Why this matters:

This significantly increases litigation risk. Even relatively new employees will gain strong protection, and compensation awards may be considerably higher than before.

Employer preparations:

• strengthen probation processes
• train managers on documentation and procedural fairness
• justify dismissals clearly, even in early months of employment

2. Zero Hours Contracts – Guaranteed Hours and Cancellation Pay

Coming in April or October 2027:

New rights for workers on zero hours arrangements include:

• entitlement to guaranteed hours reflecting previous working patterns
• requirement for reasonable notice of shift schedules
• mandatory compensation where shifts are cancelled at short notice

Industries most affected:

Hospitality, retail, social care, warehouse and delivery work – any sector relying heavily on flexible scheduling.

3. Statutory Sick Pay Reform – April 2026

From April 2026, SSP will undergo substantial reform:

• removal of waiting days — SSP payable from day one of sickness
• removal of the Lower Earnings Limit
• weekly rate set at £118.75 or 80% of weekly earnings, whichever is lower

Employer implications:

• increased costs for short term absences
• payroll system changes
• updates to sickness policies

4. Family Related Rights Become Day One Rights – April 2026
Parental Leave

Will become a day one entitlement, eliminating the previous one year service requirement.

Paternity Leave

• becomes a day one right
• may be taken after Shared Parental Leave
Impact:

HR processes, onboarding, and entitlement checks must be updated to reflect that length of service will no longer be relevant.

Employer Action Checklist

• update HR policies on sickness, parental rights, flexible working, scheduling
• audit zero hours practices and shift planning systems
• update training for managers on fair dismissals and improved documentation
• re assess financial and legal exposure under uncapped unfair dismissal awards

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

08/01/2026

Employment Law in 2026

The year 2025 was a milestone for employment law in the United Kingdom. The most significant event was the passing of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025), which received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025.

The new provisions will be implemented in stages over two years, with key changes coming into effect in 2026.

What reforms await employees and employers?

Key changes introduced by ERA 2025

ERA 2025 brings major changes to employment law. The most important provisions concern unfair dismissal, zero-hours contracts, and other critical areas.

Unfair Dismissal

• The qualifying period for bringing an unfair dismissal claim has been reduced from 2 years to 6 months – a significant change from previous rules.

• A new category of automatically unfair dismissal has been introduced – protecting employees from dismissal for refusing to agree to contractual changes unless the employer can prove the changes were necessary due to serious financial difficulties.
Planned implementation date: January 2027.

Zero-Hours Contracts

The Act aims to tackle so-called “one-sided flexibility.” Eligible workers will have the right to be offered guaranteed hours that reflect their actual working patterns.

They will also gain the right to reasonable notice of shift changes and compensation for shifts cancelled or shortened at short notice. These provisions will also apply to agency workers.
Planned implementation date: 2026.

Other Important Changes

• Strengthening the right to flexible working (2027)
Employees will be able to request flexible working arrangements from day one of employment, without a qualifying period. Employers will be required to provide a clear justification for any refusal, increasing transparency and fairness.

• Sick pay entitlement from the first day of absence (April 2026)
Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) will be payable from the first day of illness, removing the previous waiting period.

• Expanded bereavement leave for close family members (2026–2027)
Bereavement leave will now cover a wider circle of close relatives, not just parents. This ensures employees can take time to grieve and manage family matters without fear of losing income or employment.

• Improved protection for pregnant employees and maternity rights (2027)
The Act strengthens safeguards against dismissal during pregnancy and after maternity leave. Employers will face stricter obligations to accommodate maternity-related needs, promoting equality and job security.

• New day-one rights to parental and paternity leave (April 2026)
Employees will no longer need to meet a minimum service requirement to qualify for parental or paternity leave. These rights will apply from the first day of employment, supporting family life and work-life balance.

Please note that these dates may change – I will keep you updated with the latest information.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

04/01/2026

My next success! Case before the Employment Tribunal won
Ms Ewa Gospodarek v Ms Luboslava Gallova t/a No Creases Harmony

The Employment Tribunal upheld claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal, unpaid holiday pay, and unlawful deductions.

In December 2025, the case before the Employment Tribunal concluded, in which I had the pleasure of representing the Claimant.

The Tribunal upheld Ms Gospodarek’s claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (notice pay), holiday pay, and unlawful deduction from wages. The Respondent was ordered to pay compensation.

The pleaded factual background

Ms Gospodarek (a Polish national) worked as an ironer for the Respondent on part-time basis, a sole trader operating as No Creases Harmony, starting 6 January 2023.

From January 2025 the Claimant’s hours were reduced, and she was pressed to become self employed (which she refused). In April 2024, she received a without prejudice settlement proposal, followed days later by a dismissal letter alleging work elsewhere while off sick.

We pleaded that no investigation meeting took place, she was not given a fair chance to respond, and no disciplinary procedure or appeal was provided, including basic ACAS Code steps (notification of allegations, meeting, opportunity to respond). The claim sought unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay, unlawful deductions, and an ACAS uplift for Code breaches.

What the Tribunal’s outcome shows

1. Procedural fairness matters.
The Tribunal awarded a 15% ACAS uplift on the compensatory award because of breaches of the ACAS Code on disciplinary and grievance procedures. Even a moderate uplift meaningfully increases the award where the Code isn’t followed (investigation, written allegations, meeting, right to be accompanied, decision, appeal).

2. Multiple heads of claim can succeed together.
The Claimant succeeded on unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (notice), holiday pay, and unlawful deduction from wages - illustrating that failures around dismissal procedure often travel with wage/holiday irregularities.

3. Trading status doesn’t shield a sole trader.
The claim was properly directed at the individual sole trader (“t/a No Creases Harmony”), and the Tribunal issued orders against that Respondent. This is consistent with pleading practice where a business is operated by a sole trader.

Practical lessons for employers (and employees)

• Follow the ACAS Code scrupulously: investigate, set out allegations in writing, hold a meeting, allow representation, and offer an appeal. Failures risk an uplift (up to 25%) and a finding of unfair dismissal. In this case the uplift was 15%.
• Keep accurate wage/holiday records and pay what’s due on termination to avoid Working Time and unlawful deduction claims.
• Understand status and liability: if you’re a sole trader, liability is personal; closing or re branding the business doesn’t defeat a properly named claim.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates: https://www.martainkin.co.uk/legal-updates

30/10/2025

Why AI Is Not Always a Good Idea in Employment Law

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming many industries, and legal services are no exception. Tools that generate documents, summarize cases, and provide quick answers can seem like a cost-effective and time-saving solution.

However, when it comes to employment law – a field that often involves nuanced interpretation, human judgment, and strategic thinking – relying solely on AI can pose serious risks.

1. Lack of Contextual Understanding
Employment law disputes rarely hinge on a single clause or statute. They involve context: workplace culture, the history of interactions, and the credibility of witnesses.

AI can process text but cannot truly understand the subtleties of human behaviour or the strategic implications of a decision. For example, deciding whether to pursue a constructive dismissal claim requires weighing legal risk against practical outcomes – something AI cannot do with human insight.

2. Risk of Serious Errors
AI tools can misinterpret legal language or apply outdated law if not properly supervised. Employment legislation and case law evolve constantly, and an AI system trained on older data may provide advice that is no longer accurate.

A poorly drafted grievance response or settlement agreement could expose an employee to financial loss or weaken their position in a tribunal.

3. Overconfidence in AI Outputs
One of the biggest dangers is assuming AI-generated content is correct. Employees who rely on AI for drafting claims or negotiating settlements may unknowingly omit critical details or fail to comply with procedural rules.

Missing a statutory deadline or miscalculating compensation can have irreversible consequences.

4. AI Cannot Replace Human Judgment
Legal strategy often involves anticipating how an employer or tribunal will react, assessing credibility, and negotiating tactically. These are human skills built on experience, empathy, and professional judgment.

AI cannot replicate this. It can suggest options, but it cannot weigh emotional dynamics or reputational risk.

5. Confidentiality and Data Security
Using AI tools often means uploading sensitive employment documents to third-party platforms. This raises concerns about data privacy and compliance with GDPR.

Employees must ensure that any AI tool they use has robust security measures and does not store or misuse personal data.

AI-Assisted Grievances: What Employees and Employers Need to Know

The workplace is evolving rapidly, and a trend is shaping the employment landscape: the rise of AI-generated grievances.

A Growing Challenge

Employees are increasingly turning to generative AI tools to draft grievances. While these tools can help structure complaints, they often produce lengthy, repetitive, and overly legalistic documents.

Common issues include:

• Volume and Complexity: AI grievances can be difficult to navigate, with exaggerated language and irrelevant case law.
• Data Risks: Using public AI platforms may expose sensitive company or personal data.
• Unrealistic Expectations: AI often provides optimistic advice, giving employees a skewed view of their chances in tribunal proceedings.

This overconfidence can lead to prolonged disputes, higher litigation costs, and reduced willingness to settle.

Employer Response Strategy
• Prioritise informal resolution and foster open communication.
• Hold face-to-face meetings to clarify core issues.
• Train HR teams to handle AI-generated content effectively.
• Avoid point-by-point rebuttals; focus on substantive matters.
• Follow the Acas Code to ensure fair procedures.

The Bottom Line

AI can be a helpful tool for research, drafting templates, and generating ideas – but it should never replace professional advice.

Think of AI as an assistant, not an advisor. Always review outputs critically, verify legal accuracy, and seek guidance from a qualified employment lawyer before acting on AI-generated content.

Overreliance on AI not only creates unrealistic expectations for employees but also increases the risk of costly litigation for both parties.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:
https://www.martainkin.co.uk/legal-updates

Employment Law in the UK within your reach Marta Inkin

27/03/2026

21/03/2026

25/02/2026

07/02/2026

17/01/2026

08/01/2026

04/01/2026

30/10/2025

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Featured

Share

Category

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm