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.

Government Launches Review of Parental Leave

The Government has launched a full review of parental leave and pay, with the aim of better supporting working families and helping children to get the best start in life. The Government says that the current system is complicated and does not always give families the support they need. One in three fathers cannot afford to take paternity leave, and take-up of shared parental leave remains very low. The review will examine how to modernise parental leave to support families and help grow the…

Tax Dodgers Beware – You May Be Sacrificing Your Employment Rights

Tax evaders rarely understand the potential consequences of their wrongdoing. That was certainly so in the case of two cab drivers who underdeclared their earnings to the tax authorities and, in doing so, came perilously close to sacrificing any claim they might have to employment rights. The drivers launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings against a private hire company, complaining that they had not received holiday pay or work breaks. The company asserted, amongst other things, that…

There Is No Duty to Maintain Pedestrian Thoroughfares in Perfect Condition

Highway authorities and private landowners alike are under a legal duty to address tripping hazards so that pedestrians can move around in reasonable safety. As a High Court ruling made plain, however, that is not a counsel of perfection. The case concerned a 64-year-old woman who suffered a nasty fall whilst making her way back to her car after purchasing a newspaper from a local shop. She launched a personal injury claim against the owner of the shop’s forecourt and the local highway…