David Reade KC succeeded before the EAT in defending an ET’s decision that a proposed amendment to bring unlawful deduction from wages claims (over a 9 year period) on the basis that an employer was liable to continue PHI payments after the end of the employment relationship was properly refused on the basis that it had little prospect of success. The EAT also considered the vexed issued of whether employer had contracted to provide PHI payments or to provide a policy of insurance. The EAT also considered the evidential basis necessary for a tribunal to strike out claims on the basis that a fair trial was no longer possible: McMahon v AXA ICAS Ltd [2025] EAT 8.
