Case Law Update August 2026

Does an app satisfy the duty to give a payslip?

An employer can satisfy the statutory duty to give an itemised pay statement by providing free, unrestricted digital access to it, even where the worker chooses not to look. The Employment Appeal Tribunal reached that conclusion in Leedham v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2026] EAT 87.

Mr Leedham stopped receiving paper payslips when Royal Mail moved to a digital-only system and did not access his electronic payslips despite owning a smartphone capable of doing so. The Employment Tribunal rejected his argument that section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires physical delivery, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Judge Beard presiding, dismissed the appeal.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal was careful to stress that this conclusion is fact-sensitive rather than a general rule. Genuine access barriers, such as cost, the lack of a suitable device, or an individual difficulty that prevents a worker using the chosen method, could produce a different result. The Employment Appeal Tribunal also observed, without deciding the point, that where the method of delivery involves tracking or extracting data from a worker’s personal device, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights may be engaged and the outcome may differ. Employers who move staff to app-based or portal-based payslips should confirm that every worker can reach the system without cost and without being required to use a personal device where doing so raises a genuine objection, and should keep clear records of when access was made available.

Why did a non-compete clause fail in court?

A non-compete clause fails where it restrains an employee more widely than reasonably necessary to protect a genuine business interest, even where that interest is real. The Circuit Commercial Court in Bristol reached that conclusion in Huws Gray Ltd v Gentleman [2026] EWHC 1309 (Comm), where His Honour Judge Russen KC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, struck down a six-month non-compete covenant against a former area sales manager.

Daniel Gentleman managed customer relationships across three Huws Gray branches before joining a direct competitor, MKM Building Supplies, at a new branch near his former territory. Huws Gray sought an injunction to enforce a clause preventing him from working for any competing business within 20 miles of his former branches for six months. The court accepted that Huws Gray had a legitimate interest in protecting its customer relationships, but held the clause went further than necessary because it would have stopped Mr Gentleman taking almost any role with a competitor, including work unrelated to sales or customer contact. The delivery evidence did not support the radius either, since around 74% of deliveries travelled less than 10 miles and fewer than 10% went as far as 20 miles.

A separate non-solicitation clause in the same contract also failed, because the terms “Restricted Customer” and “Restricted Potential Customer” were never defined, leaving the clause without any operable content. Employers relying on restrictive covenants should check that non-compete clauses are limited to the specific competing activity and geography the employee’s role actually touched, and that any defined terms used elsewhere in the contract are in fact defined.

When is a pub liable for its door staff?

A business is not vicariously liable for the actions of security staff supplied by a genuinely independent contractor, even where those staff work exclusively on the business’s premises. The Court of Appeal confirmed that position on 25th June 2026 in Burger v Risk Solutions BG Ltd and another [2026] EWCA Civ 804, a claim brought after a customer suffered a serious injury during a restraint by door supervisors outside a Wetherspoon pub in Guildford.

The doormen were employed by a third-party security company engaged by the pub operator. This was a second appeal, brought after the High Court, King’s Bench Division had already overturned a county court finding of liability. The Court of Appeal found, on a detailed analysis of the contractual and working relationship, that the security company was a true independent contractor rather than an entity whose relationship with the pub was akin to employment, so the pub operator was not liable for the injury caused. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was sought on 24th July 2026, and the outcome remains to be decided.

Businesses that outsource security, cleaning, or similar on-site functions should check the true nature of the contractual relationship with their supplier, since a genuinely independent contractor arrangement can leave a victim of harm without recourse against the business that instructed the work, while a relationship closer to employment can expose the business to liability it did not expect.

This article does not provide a full statement of the law and readers are advise to take legal advice before taking any action based on the information contained herein’