UK employment law is undergoing its most significant transformation in a generation following the Royal Assent of the Employment Rights Act 2025. 

This landmark legislation, a cornerstone of the government’s “Plan to Make Work Pay,” aims to modernise workplace rights, tackle insecure work, and boost wages. 

For both employers and employees, understanding these changes is crucial for navigating the evolving professional environment.

Here’s a summary of the key shifts introduced by the Act:

For Employees: Strengthened Protections and Security

The Act delivers a significant boost to worker security and fairness:

• Earlier Unfair Dismissal Protection: A headline change is the reduction of the qualifying period for standard unfair dismissal claims from two years to six months, effective from 1 January 2027. This provides millions more workers with essential job security much earlier in their employment.
• Ending Exploitative Contracts: The Act tackles “one-sided flexibility” by introducing rights to guaranteed hours that reflect regular working patterns, reasonable notice of shifts, and compensation for short-notice shift cancellations, benefiting zero-hours and agency workers.
• Day-One Rights: Vital protections become available from the very first day of a job, including Statutory Sick Pay (with the lower earnings limit and waiting period removed) and unpaid parental and paternity leave.
• Enhanced Family and Bereavement Support: Protections for pregnant workers and new mothers returning to work are strengthened. Additionally, a new right to statutory bereavement leave (including for pregnancy loss) is introduced.
• Proactive Harassment Prevention: Employers now face a stronger duty to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment, including protection from harassment by third parties like clients or suppliers.

For Employers: New Compliances and Operational Shifts

While providing workers with more security, the Act necessitates significant procedural updates and potential cost adjustments for businesses:

• Revamped Probation and Dismissal: With unfair dismissal protection starting at six months, employers must refine their recruitment, probationary, and performance management processes. Robust, fair dismissal procedures from an early stage are now critical to avoid claims.
• Managing Predictable Hours: Businesses relying on flexible staffing models, such as zero-hours contracts, need to implement systems to track hours, offer guaranteed contracts, and manage shift scheduling in compliance with the new rules on notice and cancellation pay.
• Increased SSP Costs: The removal of the waiting period and earnings threshold for Statutory Sick Pay may increase payroll costs, especially for smaller businesses or those with lower-paid workforces.
• Strengthened Collective Redundancy Obligations: The stakes for large-scale redundancies are higher. The protective award for failing to collectively consult effectively can now double to up to 180 days’ pay. Consultation thresholds are also tightened.
• The Fair Work Agency: Compliance will be overseen by a powerful new enforcement body, the Fair Work Agency, simplifying the process for workers to seek help and creating a more level playing field for compliant businesses.

Looking Ahead

The changes from the Employment Rights Act 2025 are being phased in, with many key reforms taking effect on 1st April 2026 and 1st January 2027. 

This phased approach gives both employers and employees time to adapt. 

For businesses, this means proactively reviewing policies, training managers, and updating employment contracts. 

For workers, it’s about understanding these powerful new rights to ensure a fairer and more secure working future.

Helping Employers and Employees Navigate Changes

At Rollos, we have been advising employers and employees on changes to employment law for generations.

Our experienced team of employment lawyers are already well versed in the changes that the Employment Rights Act 2025 brings.

So whether you are an employer wanting to make sure you are compliant with new regulations, or an employee seeking representation and/or clarification of your rights, Rollos are here to help.

Contact Rollos to discuss the latest changes to employment law.

The news regarding the University of Dundee’s latest round of job cuts highlights the ongoing financial volatility within the Scottish higher education sector. 

For the employees involved, the move towards another 180 full-time redundancies – following the departure of nearly 1,000 staff since 2024 – creates a landscape of uncertainty and high stakes.

At Rollos, we understand that behind these headlines are individuals facing life-changing decisions about their careers and financial futures.

The Current Situation at Dundee University

Interim Principal Professor Nigel Seaton has confirmed a new voluntary severance scheme aimed at plugging a multi-million-pound deficit. 

While the University frames this as a necessary step toward “financial sustainability,” the reality for many staff is far more complex.

With 180 roles expected to be axed to save approximately £10m, employees are once again navigating a process that involves difficult choices between staying in a high-pressure environment or accepting a termination package.

Voluntary Severance vs. Compulsory Redundancy

In these situations, universities typically prefer “voluntary severance” because it allows for a smoother transition. However, from a legal perspective, the lines can often blur.

• Voluntary Severance: This is an agreement where you choose to leave in exchange for a financial package. It is often a proactive way to manage your exit on your own terms.
• Redundancy: Whether voluntary or compulsory, this is a formal legal process. If you are selected for redundancy, your employer must follow a fair and transparent procedure to avoid claims of unfair dismissal.

For those facing the severance route, it is vital to ensure that the terms offered are fair and provide adequate protection for the future.

Why You May Need a Settlement Agreement

When a University (or any employer) offers what is known as Voluntary Severance, they will almost certainly require you to sign a Settlement Agreement.

A Settlement Agreement is a legally binding document that waives your right to bring any future claims against your employer (such as unfair dismissal or all discrimination) in exchange for a financial sum usually in excess of your contractual and statutory entitlement.

As ou are giving up those legal rights, Scots law requires you to receive independent legal advice for the agreement to be valid. 

In most cases, the employer will contribute towards the cost of this legal advice usually between £350 and £600 exclusive of VAT.

How Rollos Can Help

Whether you are facing compulsory redundancy or have been offered a voluntary severance package, our Employment law team  can give  the clear, empathetic, and expert guidance you need. We help you understand:

• The Value of Your Package: Is the offer truly “enhanced,” or are you settling for the bare minimum?
• The Fine Print: We review the terms of your Settlement Agreement to ensure there are no hidden clauses that could restrict your future employment.
• Your Rights: If you feel the process has been unfair or lack of transparency is a concern, we can advise on the best course of action.

Navigating the “financial black hole” of a large institution shouldn’t mean you’re left in the dark about your own rights.

Are you an employee at the University of Dundee or another local institution affected by recent cuts? Contact our Employment Law team today for a confidential consultation on your options regarding settlement agreements and redundancy.

At Rollos, we often see how the loss of a loved one can be complicated by uncertainty surrounding their final wishes. 

A recent case at Falkirk Sheriff Court, Boyd v Boyd, serves as a poignant reminder that even the most “meticulous” individuals can leave behind legal ambiguity if they do not follow formal procedures for updating a Will.

The Case: A Family Divided by a Found Letter

Following the death of Isabel Hughes in early 2023, a dispute arose between her two daughters. 

One daughter (the pursuer) found a copy of a letter dated from 2009 among her mother’s possessions. 

This letter appeared to be instructions to a solicitor to alter her mother’s 2002 Will—specifically, to remove the other daughter (the defender) as a beneficiary.

The pursuer argued that this letter should be treated as an “informal codicil” (a document that amends an existing Will). 

However, the court was faced with a critical question: Did this letter represent a “settled intention” to change the Will, or was it simply a draft of instructions that the deceased ultimately decided not to send?

The Sheriff’s Ruling

Sheriff Christopher M. Shead ultimately ruled against the letter being a valid amendment to the Will. 

Several key factors led to this decision:

• No Evidence of Sending: There was no proof the letter was ever sent to the solicitors. The original solicitors confirmed they had no record of it.
• The “Meticulous” Test: Both daughters agreed their mother was a meticulous woman. The Sheriff noted that if she were truly determined to change her Will, a meticulous person would have followed up and ensured the legal work was completed in the 14 years between writing the letter and her passing.
• Changing One’s Mind: The court concluded that it was more likely the deceased had written the letter during a period of upset but later changed her mind and chose not to act on it.

Why This Matters for You

This case highlights a common misconception: that a signed piece of paper found in a drawer is enough to change your legal estate. 

In a similar case, our Tony Anderson was instructed in a case before Sheriff Johnston in Forfar Sheriff Court, SC v LM. The Sheriff held that the widow of a deceased, living with him at the time of death, was entitled to decide on the necessary funeral arrangements.

The deceased left a will nominating his mother and brother as executors, but no specific written intention or wish as to where he was to be cremated or buried. He was a serving soldier, and during conversation on leave had told his wife he wished to be buried alongside his brother in law. This decision was appealed by the executor as she thought he should be buried elsewhere, but the appeal was subsequently withdrawn.

The tragic upshot of the dispute was that the poor man’s body was left to languish in storage for more than three years before his final burial, not without acrimony and ill feeling at his graveside.

The absence of much-needed appellate court input leaves the law in Scotland sorely lacking and unclear. There is very little reported authority, although Sheriff Scott in Evans v McIntyre (Aberdeen Sheriff Court, 1980) provided guidance in contradiction to the presiding sheriff in this case:

“Although there is no direct authority on the matter, I apprehend that the law must have an answer to the question of who has the right to say how a dead body is to be disposed of in the event of a competition. The answer in my opinion is the person who has the right to decide is the executor.” Further recognition in Scotland of the special position of an executor was Lord Gill’s comments in Wills, Petitioners, albeit only reported in a case note in a 1996 Family Law Bulletin.

Sheriff Johnston’s rationale in my view was and is open to criticism, not least for perhaps attaching too much weight to the character and credibility of the particular executor over the executor’s actual role and status in law. As it is no longer being appealed, it leaves the law on who ranks wide open.

Notwithstanding the dearth of authority I found when preparing submissions, it struck me that perhaps the cure would have been for the deceased to have expressed his written intentions for his final resting place in his actual will. Most wills merely insert the generic “In the event of my death I wish to be buried/cremated.” That does not go far enough.

Three years on and the law is no clearer. Therefore chamber practitioners should perhaps take an informed instruction of a preferred resting place the client has settled on and insert it in the will. The executor, whether ranking or not, would be obliged to consider and implement the preference. 

In Scotland, the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 sets high standards for what constitutes a valid testamentary document.

The risks of “informal” updates include:

• Costly Litigation: Disputes between siblings or family members can drain the estate’s value in legal fees.
• Emotional Strain: Legal battles during a time of grief can cause irreparable damage to family relationships.
• Unintended Outcomes: Your assets may end up being distributed according to an old Will that no longer reflects your current relationships or life circumstances.

How Rollos Can Help

Whether you are looking to create your first Will or need to update an existing one, the team at Rollos is here to ensure your wishes are legally watertight. 

We provide expert guidance in:

• Drafting Wills: Ensuring they meet all statutory requirements.
• Dispute Resolution: Helping families navigate disagreements over an estate with sensitivity and professional insight.
• Executries: Assisting executors in the complex process of administering an estate.

Don’t leave your legacy to chance or a “found letter.” Instead, choose a properly drafted will to ensure your estate goes where you want it to.

In a landmark decision, the Court of Session has allowed two individuals, who had separated, to continue with an adoption jointly, despite no longer cohabiting. This is believed to be the first published Scottish ruling of its kind.

What are the facts of this adoption case?

The applicants were a couple (never married or in a civil partnership) who already jointly adopted one child and were in the process of adopting a sibling. 

They separated mid-process but sought to complete the adoption jointly rather than proceeding separately.

Under the current adoption legislation, a “relevant couple” eligible to adopt jointly is defined as people who are either married, in a civil partnership, or “living together as if civil partners or spouses in an enduring family relationship.”

Because the applicants were no longer living together, they risked being forced to abandon a joint application and instead leave one party to adopt alone.

What was the Court’s Reasoning on Adoption when Separated?

The Court of Session adopted a “broad and flexible” interpretation of the statutory requirement. It held that the purpose of the “living together” provision is to protect the welfare of the child, by ensuring adoption into a stable family unit.

The Court recognised that co-residence is not an absolute requirement; what matters is whether the adopters maintain a stable parental relationship in practice, able to work together in the child’s best interests.

In this case, although not sharing a home, the applicants showed that they had created a cohesive family life post separation, and that they continued to act cooperatively in caring for their children. 

The Court therefore permitted them to be treated as a relevant couple for adoption purposes.

What is the Significance & Implications of this Ruling on Family Law?

This judgment reflects evolving family dynamics and indicates that Scottish family law may be becoming more adaptable to non-traditional family structures. 

The ruling emphasises that the child’s welfare remains paramount, and that formal legal tests must sometimes be interpreted flexibly to reflect the reality of caring relationships.

For adoption practitioners, this decision may pave the way for those who are separated but are co-operating and still wish to co-parent.

It also highlights the importance of evidence of cooperative parenting and a stable integrated family life when arguing that separated individuals should still count as a “relevant couple.”

If you would like to discuss this ruling and the implications, contact the family law experts at Rollos.

Rollos have signed up to an annual Will-writing campaign for another season. 

Rollos have supported WillAid for years. The campaign helps to raise vital funds, supporting eight charities, every November. At Rollos, we will waive the usual fee for writing a basic will. Instead, clients are invited to make an upfront donation to Will Aid.

Over the years, we’ve raised £170,800 for Will Aid. We’re looking forward to another successful Will Aid season. 

We’re delighted to volunteer our time and expertise to support such a fantastic campaign, raising money for worthy causes and ensuring that people get a will written – one of the most important steps you can take to support your family. 

Solicitors taking part in the campaign waive their fees for Will-writing services throughout November, instead inviting clients to make an upfront donation to Will Aid.

The suggested voluntary donation for a basic single Will is £120, or £200 for a pair of basic ‘mirror’ Wills. 

Donations support eight of the UK’s best-loved charities: Age UK, British Red Cross, Christian Aid, NSPCC, SCIAF (Scotland), and Trócaire (N. Ireland) and new to the 2025 campaign, Crisis and Shelter.

In total, Will Aid has raised more than £24 million in donations and many millions more in pledged legacies for the partner charities since its launch in 1988.

This year the scheme conducted a nationwide poll that revealed that 66% of UK adults either don’t have a Will or have one that’s out of date.

Peter de Vena Franks, Will Aid campaign director, said: “We are very grateful that Rollos has signed up to this year’s campaign. It is only thanks to the commitment of firms like Rollos volunteering their time that the campaign can continue to raise much-needed donations for our partner charities.

“More than half of UK adults still do not have a Will, so this November is a great time to tick that task off your list while supporting the incredible work of our partner charities.”

For more information on how to make a Will through Will Aid, visit www.willaid.org.uk or contact Rollos to discuss your will today.