Under UK law, publishers are legally entitled to stop commissioning new work from authors when concerns arise internally, even if allegations have not been proven or publicly detailed.
In practice, UK law gives publishers broad discretion to end future author relationships without making public allegations, provided contracts allow it and decisions are not discriminatory. That legal discretion has come under renewed scrutiny following HarperCollins UK’s decision to end future publishing arrangements with David Walliams, a move the company has said is grounded in employee well-being and internal processes rather than commercial performance.
While some media outlets and social media users have framed the decision around alleged inappropriate behaviour, HarperCollins has not publicly confirmed any allegations and has declined to comment on internal matters, citing employee privacy. No court findings or regulatory actions have been announced. From a legal standpoint, the distinction between confirmed fact and reported claims is critical — and it explains why companies often act decisively while saying very little.
What you need to know
Summary: UK publishers can legally decline future author contracts without proving wrongdoing, provided they act within contractual terms and comply with employment and discrimination law. Decisions framed around employee well-being typically reflect internal risk assessments and duty-of-care obligations, not findings of guilt.
Why this is the key legal question
For readers, the immediate question is simple: how can a publisher walk away from a bestselling author without making anything explicit? The answer lies in how UK law treats commercial contracts, workplace obligations, and corporate governance.
Unlike employment relationships, authors are not staff members. Their agreements are commercial contracts, usually time-limited, and often give publishers broad discretion when deciding whether to commission future work. That discretion exists regardless of sales success, public opinion, or the absence of formal legal findings.
What has changed in recent years is not the law itself, but how aggressively companies apply it in response to internal concerns.
What the public reporting didn’t explain
The initial reporting confirmed the decision but left unresolved how publishers lawfully reach such outcomes. Several crucial elements tend to remain private, not because companies are evasive, but because disclosure can create legal risk in itself.
-
Whether concerns were raised through formal complaints or informal reporting channels
-
How internal risk assessments weighed staff welfare against commercial value
-
Why future contracts can be declined without terminating existing agreements
-
How confidentiality obligations limit what companies can safely say
These gaps are structural, not accidental, and they shape how institutions respond long before issues reach the courts.
What UK law actually allows publishers to do
Under UK contract law, publishers are generally free to decide whether to enter into or renew author agreements. There is no legal requirement to demonstrate misconduct before declining future commissions, provided decisions comply with contractual terms and do not breach equality legislation.
At the same time, employers have statutory obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to protect the physical and psychological well-being of their employees. If concerns are raised internally, employers are expected to assess risk and take proportionate action. The law does not require those concerns to be publicly substantiated before action is taken.
Directors’ duties under the Companies Act 2006 further reinforce this approach. Directors are required to act in the best interests of the company, which increasingly includes reputational risk, staff retention, and organisational culture — not just revenue.
Taken together, these frameworks allow companies to act preventatively rather than reactively, even when external details remain limited.
Why companies rely on silence and neutral language
From a legal perspective, silence is often the safest option. Publicly discussing internal complaints can expose companies to defamation claims, breach confidentiality obligations, or deter future whistleblowers from coming forward.
As a result, phrases such as “employee well-being” or “internal processes” are commonly used to explain decisions without assigning blame. This approach does not imply guilt or innocence. It reflects a legal environment in which employers are encouraged to manage risk while protecting all parties involved. Employment tribunals have repeatedly accepted that employers may take precautionary action based on reasonable belief rather than conclusive proof.
What this means for authors and publishers
The practical effect is a shift in how power operates within creative industries. Commercial success alone no longer guarantees long-term institutional backing. Internal culture, staff expectations, and governance standards now carry real weight in decision-making.
For publishers, this case illustrates how legal discretion can be exercised quietly but lawfully. For authors and agents, it highlights the importance of understanding how contracts, reputation, and internal corporate processes intersect — often outside public view.
What happens next
Factually, little changes overnight. Existing books remain in circulation, and there has been no move to withdraw previously published work. The decision applies only to future titles.
More broadly, however, the episode signals that publishers are increasingly willing to act before disputes become public or legal. That trend is likely to continue, particularly in sectors where employee welfare and reputational risk are closely scrutinised.
Frequently asked questions
Can publishers drop authors over allegations under UK law?
Yes. Publishers can choose not to continue or renew author contracts when concerns arise, even if allegations are unproven or not made public, provided they act within contractual terms and comply with discrimination law.
Does a publisher need proof of wrongdoing to stop publishing new books?
No. There is no legal requirement to prove misconduct before declining future commissions. Decisions are often based on internal risk assessments and governance obligations.
What does “employee well-being” mean legally?
It refers to an employer’s duty to protect staff from physical and psychological harm, including responding appropriately to internal complaints or concerns.
Why don’t companies explain allegations publicly?
Public comment can create legal exposure and breach confidentiality. Silence is often a compliance measure, not an admission.
Do existing books or contracts get cancelled?
Usually not. In most cases, decisions relate only to future work, with existing agreements remaining in place unless formally terminated.
Editor’s note: This article analyses the legal and governance framework surrounding publishing decisions. It does not make findings of fact beyond what has been publicly confirmed.
