-
- Date:
- 14 March 2019
- Type:
- Commentary and insights
Consultant editor Darren Newman considers whistleblowing in the NHS, focusing on the public interest test and the danger of working on the basis that an allegation is malicious.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Type:
- Letters and forms
A model letter to respond to a worker who has made a protected disclosure.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti [2018] IRLR 251 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the motivation of a manager who manipulated evidence to procure the dismissal of a whistleblowing employee could not be attributed to the employer, as the decision to dismiss was taken by a manager who was not motivated by the employee's protected disclosures.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Chesterton Global Ltd and another v Nurmohamed [2017] IRLR 837 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal had made no error in law when it held that an employee's disclosure, which engaged the interests of 100 managers of a national estate agency, was made "in the public interest" and protected under the whistleblowing legislation.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Day v Health Education England and others [2017] IRLR 623 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a trainee doctor was not prevented from bringing a whistleblowing claim against the third-party introducer by the fact that he was engaged as a worker by the hospital trust to which he was assigned. His claim could proceed if the introducer could be said to substantially determine the conditions under which he worked in accordance with s.43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Court of Appeal has held that a claimant cannot succeed in a whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim where the decision-maker was unaware of the protected disclosure at the time of the decision to dismiss.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the employment tribunal that disclosures made by a worker satisfied the "public interest" requirement for protection under the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The disclosures related to a breach of the employment contracts of 100 senior managers, including the whistleblower.
