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.

The Law is Not in the Business of Discouraging High-Risk Adventure Sports

Adventure sports enthusiasts have a perfect right voluntarily to place themselves in danger and, as a High Court ruling showed, the law is not in the business of discouraging organisers of challenging and high-risk events. The case concerned a very fit middle-aged woman who took part in a demanding obstacle race. She was swinging between monkey rings when she fell to the ground, suffering serious injuries to her right leg and shoulder. She sought compensation from the event’s organisers on the…

Plagued by Former Employees Turned Competitors? See a Lawyer Today!

Many business owners lie awake at night worrying that senior employees may leave to set up rival operations, taking clients and confidential information with them. Such conduct is, however, highly likely to be unlawful and, as one case showed, specialist lawyers can very swiftly take steps to nip it in the bud. The case concerned a share purchase agreement (SPA), by which a consultancy group acquired the entire issued share capital of a rival company for over £6.4 million. As part of the deal,…

Causation Issue Stymies Assaulted Teacher’s Personal Injury Claim

Employers are required to perform risk assessments and to have policies in place to ensure the reasonable safety of their staff. As a Court of Appeal ruling concerning a pupil’s assault on a teacher showed, however, it can be very difficult to prove that breaches of such duties have caused you injury. The assistant headteacher suffered a fractured cheekbone and psychiatric injuries when the agitated pupil punched him in the face without warning. In the light of the boy’s deteriorating…