Whistleblowing and the Public Interest – Guideline EAT Ruling

Workplace disclosures of information can only qualify for whistleblowing protection if they are made in the public interest – but what exactly does that mean? Guidance on that issue was given in an important Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling.

Whilst working for a law firm as a…

Feb 25, 2021

Pexels energepiccom 561458 1024x839

Workplace disclosures of information can only qualify for whistleblowing protection if they are made in the public interest – but what exactly does that mean? Guidance on that issue was given in an important Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling.

Whilst working for a law firm as a consultant, a solicitor made disclosures in the form of emails in which he expressed the view that a client was being overcharged. After his consultancy was terminated, he complained to an Employment Tribunal (ET) that he had been subjected to detriments for making protected disclosures.

The ET accepted that he had disclosed information that he believed indicated that the client had been overcharged. He also believed that the information tended to show that the firm had breached its contractual obligations to the client. Both beliefs were reasonably held. However, his claim was rejected on the basis that he did not reasonably believe that the disclosures were in the public interest.

Ruling on his challenge to that outcome, the EAT noted that the ET made no finding that the firm had in fact overcharged its client. The truth or otherwise of the allegation was irrelevant to the question of what the man reasonably believed.

Upholding his appeal, the EAT noted that solicitors, as officers of the court, are held to high standards of honesty and integrity and that overcharging a client may raise professional regulatory issues. The ET had applied the wrong legal test in finding that the disclosures contained no public interest element and related solely to the private contractual relationship between the firm and its client.

The EAT emphasised that a disclosure of information relevant only to one person – in this case a single client – may nevertheless be a matter of public interest. The ET had also erred in failing to ask itself whether the disclosures had a material influence on the decision to terminate the man’s consultancy. His complaint was sent back for fresh consideration by a differently constituted ET.

Voluptatem fugit sed asperiores eius.

Modi necessitatibus autem ullam illo. Necessitatibus minima voluptatum odit. Ipsum soluta animi error facilis natus.

Facere excepturi architecto odit voluptate dicta. Dolorem facilis cupiditate enim libero nihil ullam voluptas. Sint tempore suscipit odit in a quisquam.

Quis impedit voluptas voluptatum est. Eos nemo sequi laborum sed aut quam. Culpa sed accusantium quibusdam dicta.

Employee Prey to Paranoid Delusions ‘Not Disabled’, Court of Appeal Rules

The statutory definition of ‘disability’ came under close Court of Appeal analysis in an employment case concerning a sales executive plagued by paranoid delusions that he was being followed and constantly monitored by a malign gang of Russians. Following a relationship with a Ukrainian woman, the man developed a belief that he was being tracked in person and in the digital world. He installed CCTV at his home and was nervous about communications technology. He changed his email address at…

Cooling Off Periods and Retraction of Oral Resignations – Guideline Ruling

Large employers often have ‘cooling off’ policies in place which address the common situation of employees orally announcing their resignation in a stressful moment and subsequently having second thoughts. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, such polices, once adopted, must be honoured. The case concerned a supermarket worker who was under strain at home due to her onerous caring responsibilities for sick and elderly relatives. During an understaffed night shift, she became…

Are ‘Smart’ Motorways Safe? High Court Ruling Begs the Question

Are so called ‘smart’ motorways, which lack hard shoulders, safe? An answer to that question was implicitly begged by a High Court case concerning a catastrophic accident involving a minibus filled with university students, one of whom died. The university-owned minibus was returning from a sporting event along a stretch of smart motorway when it began to lose power. After a dashboard warning light came on, the driver pulled into an emergency refuge area (ERA). About 22 seconds later, he drove…