In Sinelnikova v ActivTrades plc, an employment tribunal upheld a compliance officer's claims of unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and victimisation after finding that she had been subjected to "concerted and malicious" action by her employer.
In Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti, the Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal for making protected disclosures is hidden behind an invented reason that is adopted by the decision-maker, the reason for the dismissal is the hidden reason rather than the invented one.
In Ibrahim v HCA International Ltd, the Court of Appeal reiterated the two-step test for an employment tribunal to follow when deciding if the claimant had a reasonable belief that the disclosures they were making were "in the public interest".
In Simpson v Cantor Fitzgerald Europe, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the tribunal decision that 37 disclosures made by a city worker are not protected disclosures within the meaning of s.43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In Ibrahim v HCA International Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the worker's complaint that false rumours had been spread about him is an allegation of defamation and a disclosure of information that tends to show a breach of a legal obligation under the whistleblowing provisions.
In Timis and another v Osipov and another, the Court of Appeal held that, under s.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employee may bring a whistleblowing claim for dismissal-related detriment against a fellow worker.
In Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth, the Court of Appeal held that an "allegation" can contain "information" and the terms are not mutually exclusive for the purposes of the whistleblowing legislation.