In a protected disclosure case, time runs from the occurrence of the alleged detriment and not from the alleged disclosure.
Lord Nimmo Smith said: ‘It would appear to us to be consistent with the main purpose of the 1998 Act to approach the matter in this way, as to construe it in the manner suggested by Counsel for the appellants would be to deprive employees . . of an important protection which it was thought appropriate to confer on ‘whistle blowers’ in the public interest’
Judges:
Lord Marnoch and Lord Nimmo Smith and Lord Weir
Citations:
[2001] ScotCS 303, 2002 SLT 103, 2002 SCLR 455, 2002 SC 232, [2002] IRLR 344, 2002 GWD 1-42
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996, Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal from – Miklaszewicz v Stolt Offshore Ltd EAT 25-Apr-2001
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Canavan v St Edmund Campion Catholic School EAT 13-Feb-2015
canavanSECCSEAT201502
EAT Victimisation Discrimination: Detriment – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
By this appeal the Claimant attacked a lengthy and detailed decision of the Tribunal at a Pre-Hearing Review at which the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202267
