Latest Posts

UK Whistleblowing Reform 2026: Lessons from the Simon Andriesz and Lutnick-Epstein Case

The death of the Lutnick‑Epstein whistleblower, a man who raised concerns about serious operational failings before taking his own life, is a tragedy. It holds up a mirror to a system designed to provide protection, but which can still leave whistleblowers exposed, isolated and under immense pressure.

MPs have since called for an investigation and the Government has also recently launched its consultation on reforming the whistleblowing regime which could not be more timely. 

The BBC reporting on the Lutnick‑Epstein whistleblower’s death describes a familiar pattern where the employee raised concerns, he was given assurances and processes were followed. Yet, the employee was still left feeling unheard, unsupported and became increasingly distressed as he raised concerns of retaliation. Though the organisation insisted concerns were ‘dealt with appropriately,’ ‘appropriate’ is not the same as safe.

While employers may follow processes, three systemic weaknesses can be identified from this tragedy:

• A compliant process by an employer can still produce a hostile environment. Work culture is entirely dependent on leadership foresight and conscious design to embed safety from retaliation.
• Psychological safety is missing as whistleblowers often carry the burden alone with little support.
• Accountability is fragmented. Currently, no single body has overall responsibility for overseeing whistleblower welfare and support.

It is hoped that the Government’s reform will address these gaps as it considers some key questions detailed below.

A framework built for yesterday’s risks

The whistleblowing provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 were pioneering at the time. However, the world has since changed and potential wrongdoing now centres more around AI safety, cyber‑security, misuse of public funds and abuse of authority. These issues are often more complex, technical and consequential, prompting consideration of whether the current categories of protected disclosures remain fit for purpose. The consultation is therefore considering whether the list of qualifying wrongdoing should be expanded.

Who counts as a Whistleblower?

Should protection from retaliation extend beyond traditional ’employees’ and ‘workers?’ The Government recognises that vulnerability is not defined by employment status but by power imbalance and it is therefore looking across the different types of working arrangements to consider which other categories of worker should be drawn into the protection given the importance of disclosure. Volunteers, certain self‑employed individuals, contractors in regulated sectors, and gig‑economy workers will all be considered.

The public interest test: A barrier masquerading as a principle?

The requirement that a worker reasonably believes their disclosure is ‘in the public interest’ has generated years of litigation and the consultation asks whether this test is actually working as intended. 

While this test is conceptually sound, it remains practically ambiguous and creates uncertainty for workers and unnecessary litigation for employers. Updated guidance would help, but the deeper issue is still cultural; workers often fear that their motives will be scrutinised more harshly than the wrongdoing they report. 

Disclosure routes: complexity that discourages early reporting

The consultation highlights the additional requirements that apply to disclosures made to prescribed persons, including the need for a worker to `reasonably believe’ that the information disclosed is substantially true. This is a significant deterrent where it pushes workers back into internal channels that may be compromised, conflicted or culturally unsafe.

While the suggestion of additional early‑stage routes, including trade union officials, is sensible, the broader question is, whether what is ultimately needed is a central whistleblowing body: a single, independent and trusted point of contact.

As the Lutnick‑Epstein case shows, there remain significant risks where no one currently owns the duty of care.

Policies, procedures and the missing duty of care

Perhaps the most significant proposal is the introduction of a statutory duty requiring employers to maintain appropriate and effective whistleblowing procedures. This could represent a significant cultural shift, moving whistleblowing from recommended good practice to a legal obligation.

The FCA already imposes similar obligations in financial services. Ireland has also adopted a similar model. Extending this across the UK, at least to public sector employers and private employers with 50 or more employees could create conditions for culture change leading to consistency, accountability and clarity.

However, there will need to be a careful balancing act to avoid imposing disproportionate bureaucracy and costs on employers. The challenge will be designing a duty that is proportionate, practical and focused on outcomes rather than paperwork.

While a policy is not protection, the Lutnick-Epstein case demonstrates the risks that can arise when organisations fail to take ownership of whistleblower welfare. A statutory duty could help ensure that organisations consciously build cultures where protection is woven into the fabric of the workplace.

Interim Relief: A lifeline that comes too late?

The Government’s proposal to extend the deadline for interim relief applications from seven to fourteen days is a welcome, albeit modest, reform. Dismissed whistleblowers are often dealing with shock, confusion and acute distress, making the current seven-day deadline appear unduly restrictive.

While extending the deadline to fourteen days should improve access to this important remedy, questions remain as to whether it goes far enough. For many whistleblowers, securing legal advice and preparing an application within two weeks may still be a significant challenge.

Financial rewards for reporting economic crime

The consultation includes a proposal for the Serious Fraud Office to introduce financial rewards for individuals who report economic crime. While this is likely to be controversial, some may argue that it is long overdue. The US model suggests that financial incentives can significantly increase reporting and strengthen enforcement outcomes. Replicating a similar system in the UK would require the Government to decide whether it wants a whistleblowing framework that actively encourages disclosure or merely tolerates it.

In conclusion, there will need to be a careful balancing act to ensure that any reforms provide meaningful protection without creating unintended consequences:

• Over-expansion could encourage frivolous claims;
• Excessive duties could place undue burdens on smaller employers;
• A central whistleblowing body could become overwhelmed; and
• Financial incentives could distort motives.

One thing is clear, however: the current framework is outdated, fragmented and culturally naïve. It assumes that legal protection alone is sufficient when, as the case of the Lutnick-Epstein whistleblower demonstrates, legal rights mean little if individuals do not feel safe enough to use them.

If you have any views on the proposed UK whistleblowing reforms, the Government’s consultation closes on 8 January 2027.

Read More

Will I Lose My Bonus If I Resign?

For many senior executives, the most valuable part of a remuneration package is not salary but bonus.

This raises one of the most common questions we are asked: ‘If I resign will I still receive my bonus?’  Many believe this should be payable if it has been paid every year and because it is in the contract of employment. Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as that.

Whether you will be paid your bonus will depend on the wording of the bonus scheme, whether it a contractual or discretionary bonus (just because it is referred to in the contract does not mean it is contractual), and whether there is a requirement that ‘the employee must remain employed’ on a particular date. The timing of any resignation can therefore have an impact on whether it is payable.

Key Considerations

These will include:

• Is the bonus contractual or discretionary?
• Are there individual, team or business performance conditions?
• Must you still be employed on the determination date?
• Must you still be employed on the payment date?
• Does being under notice affect entitlement?
• Are there clawback provisions?
• Are there ‘good leaver’ and ‘bad leaver’ rules?

The precise wording of the bonus scheme will therefore have a direct impact on whether it is payable.

A bonus described as discretionary is not always beyond challenge, but it will usually be harder to dispute than a clearly contractual entitlement. The facts, wording and history of previous payments will all be relevant considerations.

The Timing Trap

Many executives focus on the size of a bonus but overlook crucial timing requirements. It is common for bonus schemes to require an employee to remain employed on the bonus determination date, the payment date, or both.

Some schemes also exclude payment where an employee is under notice, even if the bonus relates to a period in which they performed strongly. This means that resigning shortly before payment can have unexpected consequences.

All too often, the issue is not whether the executive earned the bonus in a commercial sense. The issue is whether the scheme wording allows the employer not to pay it.

Deferred Bonus Arrangements

In sectors such as banking, private equity, asset management, technology and professional services, deferred compensation arrangements are increasingly common.

It would be essential to carefully review:

• vesting schedules
• deferral periods
• forfeiture provisions
• malus and clawback provisions
• good leaver and bad leaver definitions
• share option or equity plan rules.

In some circumstances, leaving employment can result in the potential loss of significant future payments unless key terms are negotiated in advance.

This is particularly important where deferred awards have built up over several years. A new employment offer may look attractive, but executives are cautioned to consider what potential value is being left behind and time their departure carefully.

Good Leaver and Bad Leaver Provisions

Bonus terms and equity documents often classify ‘leavers’ differently.

A ‘good leaver’ may retain some or all rights. A ‘bad leaver’ may lose unvested awards, deferred compensation or favourable valuation treatment.

The definitions vary. Voluntary resignation, dismissal, redundancy, ill health, retirement, misconduct or negotiated exit may all be treated differently in terms of entitlement depending on the documents.

Before resigning, senior executives should therefore understand not only whether they are entitled to a bonus, but how their exit will be characterised.

Before Handing in Your Notice

Before resigning, it is advisable to consider:

• whether a bonus payment is imminent
• whether the bonus has been determined but not yet paid
• whether and when deferred awards are due to vest
• whether share options may be affected
• whether being under notice changes entitlement
• whether the departure date could impact the financial position
• whether there is scope to negotiate protection as part of the exit.

A small change in timing can sometimes make a substantial financial difference.

Final Thought

Many bonus disputes arise because executives focus on the opportunity ahead, and hand in their notice or agree a departure date without fully understanding the financial consequences of the timing. Attempting to retrospectively to negotiate the position is often futile; early advice, before any final decisions are made, is recommended to optimise financial payments and protect negotiating leverage.

How We Can Help

Quastels’ Employment Team regularly advises senior executives on bonus entitlement, deferred compensation, share options, good leaver and bad leaver provisions, settlement negotiations and remuneration disputes.

Read More

Pregnancy and maternity dismissal protections: what employers need to know

Dismissal decisions involving pregnant employees and new mothers are set to face closer scrutiny. For employers, the practical question will increasingly be whether they can explain why dismissal was proportionate and what alternatives they explored first.

In this episode of Informed, Dipti Shah and Patrick Higgins discuss the Government’s consultation response on enhanced dismissal protections and the implications for employers managing performance, restructuring or an employee’s return from maternity leave.

What is changing?

The Government intends to introduce a proportionality test for unfair dismissal during the protected period. This would replace the existing “band of reasonable responses” approach with an assessment of whether dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The changes extend beyond redundancy. The Government intends to implement them through regulations in October 2027; they are not yet in force.

Why alternatives to dismissal will matter

As Dipti and Patrick explain, the shift will put greater emphasis on the reasoning behind an employer’s decision. Identifying a business concern will be only part of the exercise. Employers should also be able to explain why other ways of addressing it were unsuitable.

Depending on the circumstances, the discussion highlights options such as adjusting hours, considering another role or exploring a job share. These are examples to assess, rather than a checklist that will resolve every case. Employers will need to consider what is realistic for the particular role, employee and business.

A practical starting point is to involve the employee in that discussion and keep a clear record of the options explored. A written explanation prepared after the decision is unlikely to be as useful as evidence showing how the employer reached it.

Who will receive the enhanced protections?

The planned protections would apply from notification of pregnancy, throughout maternity leave and for six months after it ends, without a minimum service requirement. The total period will therefore vary rather than being a fixed 18 months.

The response also extends protection to adoption leave and certain other parental leave categories. For shared parental leave, six continuous weeks would be needed for protection to continue for six months after leave ends.

What does this mean for probation and performance management?

One issue raised in the video is how employers should approach concerns arising early in employment. A probation clause should not be treated as a shortcut around statutory protections.

The planned day one protection is separate from the general qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal. That statutory qualifying period is also distinct from an employee’s contractual probation period.

For managers, the practical lesson is to address concerns promptly, communicate expectations clearly and document support offered. Where dismissal is being considered, the employee’s circumstances and applicable protections need to form part of the assessment from the outset.

How should employers prepare?

Dipti and Patrick emphasise the value of early preparation. Employers can start by reviewing how dismissal decisions are escalated, who checks the supporting evidence and whether managers understand when specialist advice is needed.

Training should help managers recognise situations involving pregnancy or a return from family leave, and encourage them to explore solutions before reaching a conclusion. Decision records should explain the business concern, the alternatives discussed and the reasons for rejecting them.

The Government has committed to supporting guidance, including information from Acas. Employers should review their approach again when the regulations and guidance are available.

Watch the conversation

Watch Dipti Shah and Patrick Higgins discuss pregnancy, maternity and dismissal in Informed, including why the evidence behind a decision could become as important as the decision itself.

For advice on managing dismissal risks, reviewing workplace procedures or training managers, contact Quastels’ Employment team.

Position as at 23 October 2026.

Read More