The Weekly Round Up: Employment Rights, Pre-Settled Status Removals, LGBT Veterans Action, the Home Office eVisa Policy and Free School Meals
13 April 2026
In the News
Employment Rights Act measures take effect
On 6 and 7 April 2026, a selection of measures under the Employment Rights Act 2025 (“the Act”) took effect.
The measures include the removal of the Lower Earnings Limit for statutory sick pay (“SSP”), making over 1.2 million workers eligible. They will also remove the waiting period for SSP, meaning workers will be paid from the first day of becoming ill, rather than from day four. In addition, employees will now be entitled to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave from the first day in their job, as opposed to after 26 weeks (paternity leave) or a year (unpaid parental leave).
Moreover, the new measures have added sexual harassment to the list of wrongdoings that may count as the basis for a “qualified disclosure” under s.43B of the Act, meaning that workers who make such disclosures, and do so in the reasonable belief that their report is in the public interest, will be afforded the whistleblowing protections against adverse treatment and unfair dismissal within the Act. Alongside this, the measures include the establishment of the Fair Work Agency, an executive agency of the Department of Trade, which will have the power to inspect workplaces, bring civil proceedings and enforce penalties if they find breaches of employment law.
These measures follow the Act’s first tranche of reforms, relating to trade unions and industrial action, which came into effect on 18 February 2026.
Home Office announces plans to remove pre-settled status from some EU Citizens
On 9 April 2026, the Home Office announced plans to begin removing pre-settled status from individuals who have not maintained continuous residence in the UK. Pre-settled status grants individuals the right to live, work, and study for 5 years, and can be upgraded to settled status after this.
The process of checking continuous residence will occur via a two-stage process. First, the Home Office will verify a person’s continuous residence in the UK against tax and benefit data, as well as reviewing any evidence of criminal conduct. Second, if the Home Office is unable to confirm eligibility for settled status, the Home Office will check their travel data to help determine continuous residence. Where continuous residence is not found, individuals will be contacted and provided an opportunity to provide evidence on either their residence or their reasons for absence. Following this, their pre-settled status will be removed if it is found to be proportionate to achieving the objective of ensuring the integrity of the EU settlement scheme.
The removal scheme is legal under the Withdrawal Act. However, the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements has raised concerns about the guidance’s implementation, given potential inaccuracies in Home Office travel data. It has announced it will seek assurance from the Home Office that independent monitoring arrangements are considered, to ensure safeguards are operating effectively.
In the Courts
Claim filed against Ministry of Defence in LGBT Veteran Action
On Tuesday, the law firm Irwin Mitchell confirmed that it has filed a challenge to the lawfulness of the Ministry of Defence’s LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme. The Scheme was implemented in 2025 to compensate LGBT veterans who were dismissed or discharged on account of the ban on LGBT personnel serving in the armed forces from 1967 to 2000. The scheme offers two types of payments: first, a flat-rate payment of £50,000 for those who were dismissed under the ban, and “impact payments” of up to £20,000 for those affected by it.
The claimants in this action were ineligible for the larger dismissal payment, as they were compelled to resign, instead of being formally dismissed. They allege that the distinction drawn between formal dismissal and constructive dismissal is unlawful and failed to comply with the HRA 1998.
Home Office eVisa Policy found lawful
The High Court has dismissed a challenge to the government’s policy of only providing confirmations of immigration status through an eVisa system. The case is R (BSC and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 705 (Admin).
The two claimants had eVisas containing incorrect information for a prolonged period, which led to denial of, or delay in access to, welfare benefits ([57], [60]-[61]). The incorrect information also resulted in concerns about being able to prove legal entitlement to work ([57]), inability to apply to rent from private landlords ([57]), and considerable stress and anxiety ([61]). The claimants challenged the policy of declining to issue biometric identity documents (BIDs) in physical or electronic form, alleging an unlawful failure to exercise discretion ([69]), and irrationality ([95]).
On the first ground, Eyre J found that the defendant did operate a fixed rule of only issuing eVisas ([71]). However, this did not fetter her discretion, because there was no legislative requirement to exercise such a power ([93]). Instead, the Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008 merely entitled the Defendant to issue BIDs in a number of ways, including eVisas ([93]).
Eyre J also dismissed the irrationality ground. In doing so, the judge placed significant weight on the fact that the Defendant acknowledged the issues with the eVIsa system, and had put in place measures to improve it ([113]). While there was scope to argue that more could be done to address these issues, this did not render the policy irrational ([114]).
Exclusion of Charedi Jewish schools from Free School Meals policy found lawful
The High Court has dismissed a challenge to the government’s Universal Infant Free School Meals policy (“UIFSM”). The case is R (CKS & Ors) v Secretary of State for Education [2026] EWHC 741 (Admin).
Under UIFSM, state-funded schools provide a free school meal to all pupils in Reception and Key Stage 1 on a non-means-tested basis ([1]). The Claimants are three members of the Charedi Jewish community, which has been recognised to have high levels of deprivation ([2]). They attend religious private schools, and as such, are ineligible for UIFSM. They alleged, inter alia, that failure to extend UIFSM to Charedi Jewish schools breached their rights under Article 14 ECHR and the PSED ([3]).
On Article 14, the Judge found that the inclusion of Charedi private schools within UIFSM would have unacceptably compromised the achievement of the Defendant’s policy objectives, and that this objective justified any discriminatory effects ([122]-[124]). In doing so, Mansfield J placed weight on the the practical and financial difficulties of extending UIFSM to private schools ([116]-[121]).
Of particular interest to practitioners may be the Judge’s finding that the Thlimmenos principle was not engaged in this case. The claimants argued that Thlimmenos applied: the defendant’s policy excluded both the claimants and other private school students, but because the claimants’ circumstances differed, failing to treat them differently was discriminatory ([87]). Mansfield J disagreed, finding that because all private school pupils were within the exception to UIFSM, the claimants and their comparator were in the same position. Therefore, the claimants were neither subject to a rule or deprived of a benefit in a discriminatory manner, and Thlimmenos did not apply ([108]).
On the PSED, the Judge found that the Defendant had discharged this duty, as the Defendant had given specific consideration to the request by the Claimants to change that policy ([146]), and carried out an equality impact assessment in September 2025 after receiving the Claimant’s pre-action letter ([150]).
On the UK HRB
Emily Higlett and Sophia Pascoe analyse the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re J, Re M and Re P (Parental Responsibility) [2026] EWCA Civ 344, in which the Court held that biological fatherhood is a prerequisite for acquiring parental responsibility under section 4 Children Act 1989.
Rosalind English explores the recent White Book guidance on AI and hallucinated authorities.
