Author: Glenn

Automatic enrolment for workplace pensions has helped many employees to start making provision for their retirement with employers and government also contributing to make a larger pension pot.

The law states that employers must automatically enrol workers into a workplace pension if they are aged between 22 and State Pension Age, earns more than minimum earning threshold. The minimum threshold is currently £10,000 and will remain the same in 2026-27. The employee must also work in the UK and not already be a member of a qualifying work pension scheme. Employees can opt-out of joining the pension scheme if they wish.

Under the rules, employers are also required to offer their workers access to a workplace pension when a change in their age or earnings makes them eligible. This must be done within 6 weeks of the day they meet the criteria.

Under the automatic enrolment rules the employer and the government also add money into the pension scheme. There are minimum contributions that must be made by employers and employees.

Both the employer and employee need to contribute. There is a minimum employer contribution of 3% and employee contribution of 4%. This means that contributions in total will be a minimum of 8%: 3% from the employer, 4% from the employee and an additional 1% tax relief. For example, if you pay £40, your employer adds £30, and you receive £10 in tax relief, a total of £80 goes into your pension.

In most automatic enrolment schemes, employees make contributions based on their total earnings between £6,240 (the lower qualifying earnings limit) and £50,270 (the upper qualifying earnings limit) a year before tax. This means that for many employees the 8% contribution rate will not be based on their full salary.

For many business owners, the focus is firmly on growth, profitability and day to day operations. Exit planning is often treated as something to think about later, perhaps a few years before retirement or when a buyer appears. In reality, leaving exit planning until the end can significantly reduce the value of a business and limit the choices available to the owner.

Business exit planning is not just about selling. It is about ensuring that the business can continue without relying entirely on the owner, whether the eventual exit is a sale, a management buyout, a family succession, or an orderly wind down. A business that depends heavily on one individual is harder to transfer, riskier to run, and usually worth less in the eyes of buyers, lenders and investors.

Early exit planning helps owners build value deliberately. This includes strengthening management teams, improving systems and processes, diversifying customer bases, and ensuring financial information is clear and reliable. These steps do not just support an eventual exit; they often lead to better performance and lower stress while the owner is still actively involved.

Tax planning is another critical element. Decisions made years in advance can have a major impact on the net proceeds of an exit. Reliefs, ownership structures, remuneration strategies and timing all need careful thought. Leaving this too late can mean avoidable tax costs and missed opportunities.

There is also a personal dimension. An exit is one of the most significant financial and emotional events in an owner’s life. Planning early allows time to define personal goals, whether that is retirement income, a new venture, or a gradual step back rather than a sudden stop.

In short, exit planning is not about leaving tomorrow. It is about running today’s business in a way that protects value, preserves choice, and gives the owner control over how and when they eventually move on.

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2025 the number of UK business births exceeded business deaths for a second successive year, pointing to a net increase in the total number of active enterprises. According to data from the Inter-Departmental Business Register, there were 313,715 new businesses created in 2025 and 285,245 that ceased trading, resulting in a net growth of 28,470 businesses on the register. This pattern suggests that entrepreneurial activity remains resilient despite broader economic headwinds and contributes to modest expansion in the overall business population.

Quarterly official statistics for late 2025 also reinforce this trend. Figures for the fourth quarter (October to December) show that new business formations increased by 10% compared with the same period in 2024, while business closures were 3.6% lower than in the prior year period. Growth in start-ups was recorded across most industrial groups, with particularly strong increases in transport, storage, information and communication sectors.

These statistics underline a shift from earlier quarters, where the balance of births and deaths fluctuated more and in some sectors raised concerns about churn and employment impact. However, the annual outcome for 2025 reinforces a net positive dynamic in UK enterprise counts. While the headline birth-death balance is encouraging, analysts note it remains important to monitor the quality of job creation and the survival prospects of new businesses as they scale. The figures are part of official statistics in development and will be refined as further data become available.

A claimant made allegations of unfair dismissal, discrimination, and detriment resulting from whistleblowing. While his claim against the Council was subsequently withdrawn early on, the claim against the private limited company proceeded.

The respondent, however, argued that the claimant was a volunteer and that his claims were vexatious, threatening to apply for a strike-out order and a costs award in the range of £2,500 to £3,000, although the case was postponed due to bereavement. The conflict escalated when the claimant sent two emails to the Tribunal, the first expressing extreme concern over the respondent’s costs warning, stating that, in the absence of certainty regarding the maximum costs the Tribunal might award, he was considering withdrawing his claim. Later that afternoon, after receiving no reply, he sent a second email declaring that he wished to confirm the withdrawal of his claim unless the Tribunal assured him that no costs order would be made against him.

However, the Tribunal’s internal processing of these emails was disorganised, and the Employment Judge, having seen only the first email, correctly identified it as a potential tactical withdrawal and invited the claimant to clarify his position within 14 days. However, a staff member who had seen the second email, but not the first, sent a letter treating the claim as having been fully withdrawn and cancelled the upcoming hearing, although the claimant had since explicitly stated that he wished to continue with his claim. The chaos continued with the Tribunal asserting that the claim had been unambiguously withdrawn and could not be resurrected.

However, the Appeals Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant as he had made his intent to withdraw conditional upon receiving advice or guarantees regarding potential costs. This ruling means that employers and respondents can no longer immediately rely on a frustrated or conditional email from a claimant as a “get out of jail free” card. Thus, in future cases, Judges are expected to be more interventionist when an unrepresented party suggests they want to drop a claim due to fear or pressure rather than through a genuine desire to end the pursuit of justice.

This case marks a potential end to the prevalent tactic of sending “warning letters” over potential costs to pressure claimants into dropping ‘weak claims’. While these letters are legally valid and often necessary, the bar for such tactics has now been raised, and respondents should be wary of using the threat of costs to trigger an automatic procedural win, as judges may now be more sympathetic to those in financial distress.

HMRC has confirmed that more than 11.48 million people submitted their 2024-25 self-assessment tax returns by the 31 January deadline. This included 475,722 taxpayers who left their filing until the final day and almost 27,456 that filed in the last hour (between 23:00 and 23:59) before the deadline!

There are an estimated 1 million taxpayers that missed the deadline. Are you among those that missed the 31 January 2026 filing deadline for your 2024-25 self-assessment returns?

If you have missed the filing deadline then you will usually be charged a £100 fixed penalty if your return is up to 3 months late, regardless of whether you owed tax or not. If you do not file and pay before 1 May 2026 then you will face further penalties unless you have made an arrangement to pay with HMRC.

If you are unable to pay your tax bill, there is an option to set up an online time to pay payment plan to spread the cost of tax due on 31 January 2026 for up to 12 months. This option is available for debts up to £30,000 and the payment plan needs to be set up no later than 60 days after the due date of a debt.

If you owe self-assessment tax payments of over £30,000 or need longer than 12 months to pay in full, you can still apply to set up a time to pay arrangement with HMRC, but this cannot be done using the online service.