There are significant changes coming into effect in UK law regarding the enforceability of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) or confidentiality clauses, particularly concerning victims of crime and workplace harassment/discrimination.

Higher Education Providers (from August 1, 2025): A ban has come into effect for higher education providers in England and Wales on using NDAs in relation to complaints of bullying, harassment, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, or sexual misconduct involving staff, members, students, or visiting speakers.

Victims of Crime (from October 1, 2025): Section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will render NDAs unenforceable if they attempt to prevent a victim of crime from disclosing information related to the crime to certain individuals or organisations, including police, lawyers, regulated professionals (including healthcare professionals), victim support services, regulators, individuals authorised by the aforementioned, and close family (child, parent, or partner) for support.

Workplace Harassment and Discrimination (potential future change): Proposed amendments to the Employment Rights Bill could potentially invalidate NDA clauses that prevent workers from making allegations or disclosures about harassment or discrimination (as defined in the Equality Act 2010), including the employer’s response to such allegations. The exact scope and implementation date are yet to be finalized and will likely involve further consultation.

Businesses and individuals using NDAs should take the following steps to ensure compliance with the evolving law:

• Familiarise yourself with the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 and related guidance, understanding the expanded categories of individuals and bodies to whom disclosures can be made, and the specific circumstances in which they are permitted.
• Update internal guidance and policies regarding the use of NDAs to align with the new regulations.
• Review and revise template NDAs and settlement agreements to ensure compliance with the new legal limits, explicitly stating when disclosures are permitted.
• Seek specialist legal advice when drafting or reviewing agreements involving sensitive allegations.
• Stay informed about further developments and updates to the law, particularly regarding the Employment Rights Bill amendments.

These changes reflect a move towards greater transparency and protection for individuals, particularly victims of crime and those experiencing harassment or discrimination, marking a shift in the way NDAs can be used in the UK. NDAs will remain a useful tool for protecting legitimate commercial interests but cannot be used to suppress disclosures about criminal conduct or, potentially, workplace misconduct.

ET rules Wetherspoon manager unfairly dismissed after giving 50% discount to a colleague

The recent Employment Tribunal case of Castagna and Davies v JD Wetherspoon serves as a critical reminder that a stated “zero tolerance” approach does not absolve employers of their duty to act reasonably in disciplinary matters.

Two employees, a bar manager and a supervisor with a combined 30 years of service, were summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. They had breached the company’s staff discount policy by authorising discounts for friends who were not physically present in the pub, a direct violation of the rules outlined in the Wetherspoon Charter.

While the breach itself was not in dispute, the tribunal found the process followed by Wetherspoon was fundamentally unfair. The investigating manager admitted the decision to dismiss was a “foregone conclusion” due to the company’s “zero tolerance” stance. This approach meant the company failed to:

• Conduct a Reasonable Investigation: The investigation did not adequately explore the context of the transactions or the individuals’ previously unblemished records.
• Consider Mitigating Factors: Their long service, good character, and the fact the company suffered no financial loss (as the friends were legitimate guests who paid the discounted price) were ignored in the decision-making process.
• Apply Policy Fairly: The tribunal criticised the “blanket” application of the rule, stating that a fair process requires considering the specific circumstances of each case, including the severity of the breach and the employee’s history.

Policies classifying certain acts as gross misconduct are standard. However, labelling something “zero tolerance” does not permit a bypass of a fair disciplinary procedure. Employers must still undertake a full and fair investigation, allow the employee to state their case, and genuinely consider whether dismissal is a proportionate response in all the circumstances. Long service and a clean disciplinary record remain highly relevant mitigating factors.

£100K fine for chemical company after worker suffers burns

A chemical company has been fined £100,000 after one of its workers was permanently scarred from burns from a steam hose at a site in Motherwell.

A 23-year-old was burnt across his back and other areas of his body as he attempted to clean a process water tank.

The company operates a large rendering plant that processes animal waste and food industry waste to produce proteins, fats and oils used in the oleo chemical, fuel, and feed industries.

It was during a nightshift that the man had been instructed to undertake cleaning duties on the process water tank, the vickery and the walls and floors in that area. The company provided pressure washers as well as a steam hose for cleaning down difficult areas where there may be tallow or other animal residues.

The steam hose was heavy and cumbersome to manoeuvre, with the uninsulated nozzle also becoming hot. The man and a colleague therefore took it in turns to carry out the steam hose task.

After a period of time, they stopped to have a break. While his colleague then went on to carry out other duties, the 23-year-old proceeded to finish the cleaning on his own.

He did this with the aid of a small cherry picker – attaching the steam hose to its basket. After the basket had been raised to the required height, the steam hose and nozzle spun round, and steam began flowing into the cherry picker basket directly at him. He quickly turned his back to prevent his face being burned, while manipulating the nozzle of the hose away from him and lowering the basket of the cherry picker, at which point he was then able to run through to one of the deluge showers to cool his burn injuries. He was taken to hospital with steam burns to several parts of his body, which have left scars to this day.

An investigation carried out by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the nozzle fitted to the steam hose was unsafe as it did not have a trigger or other mechanism fitted to allow the operator to start or stop the flow out of the nozzle at the point of operation. It also found that the mixing valve and set-up for supplying hot water for cleaning purposes was not maintained in an efficient working order or in good repair. Supervisors at the site were aware that the mixing valve was passing steam, however no action was taken to investigate the issue or prevent it from happening.

HSE inspectors also found the maintenance and engineering team had no sound engineering understanding of the risks involved when setting up such a washdown system and how to mitigate or control those risks.