Bolton School v Evans: EAT 7 Feb 2006

EAT Public Interest Disclosure – Protected Disclosure. Employee deliberately broke into computer system to show that his concerns that information might be obtained in breach of the Data Protection Act was reasonable. Disciplined for that reason and resigned in protest and being disciplined. Was it a protected disclosure? Was there a constructive dismissal? If so, was automatically or unfair or in any event unfair under general unfair dismissal principles?


The Honourable Mr Justice Elias


UKEAT/0648/05, [2006] UKEAT 0648 – 05 – 0702


Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

Appeal fromBolton School v Evans CA 9-May-2006
The claimant had been employed as an IT teacher. He was disciplined for testing the school’s computer system and revealing that it was open to abuse by hackers. He complained that this had been a qualifying protected disclosure under the 1996 Act. . .
At EATBolton School v Evans CA 15-Nov-2006
The appellant school ICT teacher had hacked into the school’s computer system, in order, he said, to demonstrate its weakness. He appealed against rejection of his assertion that his dismissal was unfair for being caused by his protected disclosure. . .
CitedBabula v Waltham Forest College CA 7-Mar-2007
The claimant said his dismissal had been automatically unfair under section 106(a) which protected him as a whistleblower. The court was asked whether any disclosure had to relate to an actual criminal offence, or otherwise what would be sufficient. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238794