EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
Burton J said: ‘It is thus necessary in a claim under section 47B to show that the fact that the protected disclosure had been made caused or influenced the employer to act (or not act) in the way complained of: merely to show that ‘but for’ the act or omission would not have occurred. Merely to show that ‘but for’ the disclosure the act or omission would not have occurred is not enough’
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)
Citations:
EAT/356/03, [2003] EAT 0349 – 03 – 2910, [2003] UKEAT 0349 – 03 – 2910, EAT/349/03, [2003] IRLR 140
Links:
Citing:
See Also – London Borough of Harrow v M S Knight EAT 18-Nov-2002
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other . .
See Also – Harrow v Knight EAT 26-Nov-2001
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Mitchell EAT 11-Feb-2014
EAT Victimisation Discrimination : Whistleblowing – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke – Employment Tribunal failed to explain sufficiently their reasoning on the causation issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187570