The employee claimed that he had been unlawfully dismissed, and that his dismissal broke the protection given to whistleblowers under the Act. The employer appealed.
Held: In such claims it was necessary first for the tribunal to establish whether it had jurisdiction, by testing whether a protected disclosure had taken place, and whether that had been the principle reason for the dismissal. This was a matter of jurisdiction, and not one of procedural fairness. Each party had to be allowed to present its own evidence on the issues, and to challenge that of the other. The appeal was allowed. The court explained the preconditions for claiming the protection of the Act.
Mummery LJ said: ‘A party is entitled to adduce evidence relevant to the issues in the case and to put questions on relevant matters to the other party and to his witnesses. It is for the Tribunal, with the assistance of the parties and their representatives, to identify the relevant issues for decision and to exercise its discretionary case management powers to decide whether the evidence adduced or the questions put to the witnesses in cross -examination are relevant .’
As to the construction of the new protected disclosure provision, Mummery LJ said: ‘The self-evident aim of the provisions is to protect employees from unfair treatment (i.e. victimisation and dismissal) for reasonably raising in a responsible way genuine concerns about wrongdoing in the workplace. The provisions strike an intricate balance between (a) promoting the public interest in the detection, exposure and elimination of misconduct, malpractice and potential dangers by those likely to have early knowledge of them, and (b) protecting the respective interests of employers and employees. There are obvious tensions, private and public, between the legitimate interest in the confidentiality of the employer’s affairs and in the exposure of wrong.’
Judges:
The Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Rix
Citations:
Times 29-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1085, [2002] Emp LR 1054, [2002] ICR 1444, [2002] IRLR 807
Links:
Statutes:
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, Employment Rights Act 1996 47B 103A
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon EAT 19-Jan-2001
. .
Application for leave – ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon CA 22-Nov-2001
Application for leave to appeal. . .
See Also – ALM (Medical Services) Ltd v Bladon CA 10-Jul-2001
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers’ Centre CA 21-Jul-2004
The claimant alleged that she had been dismissed for making qualifying disclosures about her employers. The employer said that her actions had not been in good faith. The claimant answered that her motive was irrelevant. The claimant appealed . .
Cited – Digby v East Cambridgeshire District Council EAT 30-Nov-2006
EAT Unfair dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal
Practice and Procedure – Admissibility of evidence
Total exclusion of evidence relating to final written warning inextricably linked with sanction of . .
Cited – Arthur v London Eastern Railway Ltd (T/A One Stansted Express) CA 25-Oct-2006
The claimant brought a claim for detriment suffered after he had made a protected disclosure. The employer replied that he was out of the three month time limit. He had been off sick after being assaulted, and said that his employers had treated him . .
Cited – Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) and Another v Nurmohamed (Victimisation Discrimination: Whistleblowing) EAT 8-Apr-2015
chesteron_nurmohamedEAT201504
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
Whistleblowing
Protected disclosure
This appeal concerns the meaning of the words ‘in the public interest’ inserted into section 43B(1) of the Employment Rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174425
