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.

Capability – Justifying the Dismissal of a Disabled Employee is Never Easy

Justifying the dismissal of a disabled employee on capability grounds is always likely to be an uphill struggle. That was certainly so in the case of an HGV driver who was sacked whilst in the midst of a long and painful recovery from major back surgery. The operation was serious enough to require the driver’s post-surgical treatment in a high dependency unit for three days. For months afterwards he required his wife’s help in climbing stairs and many of the most basic activities of daily life.…

Traumatised Sexual Harassment Victim Receives Six-Figure Compensation

The mental scars left by sexual harassment and victimisation at work can derail even the most promising career. In a case on point, a highly qualified construction industry trainee who was targeted by her own mentor was awarded more than £350,000 in compensation by an Employment Tribunal (ET). After doing well at school and university, the woman was dismissed from her first job after making harassment allegations. She lodged ET complaints and, although the matter was settled at an early stage,…

Work Relationships May Be Informal But Employment is Employment

When you engage someone to work in the informal sanctum of your own home, it is easy to forget that you are very likely to owe them all the legal duties of an employer. An Employment Tribunal (ET) powerfully made that point in upholding a home carer’s unfair dismissal complaint. The carer was employed by a mother to look after her son, who had round-the-clock care needs. His role demanded the utmost trustworthiness and reliability. He formed a close bond with his charge and, although the…