EAT A employed R as a support worker. R made a number of protected disclosures relating to a fellow worker’s conduct towards a client. The ET held various detriments were suffered by R on the ground of the disclosures. On appeal A asserted (1) the ET did not give adequate reasons, (2) the findings were perverse, (3) the ET must have applied the wrong test in law and (4) A will not in law be responsible viciously for detriments suffered as a result of the acts of a fellow employee of R.
Held: (1) the reasons were adequate, (2) the findings would not be said to be perverse, (3) the ET had not applied the wrong test in law and (4) A could be responsible for the acts of a fellow employee of R.
Reid QC J
 UKEAT 0323 – 06 – 2901, UKEAT/0323/06,  IRLR 314
England and Wales
Cited – Crofton v Yeboah EAT 16-May-2001
After a very long hearing, the appellant had been found guilty of race discrimination in his making of allegations about the behaviour of the respondent in failing to investigate corruption within Hackney London Borough Council.
Held: The . .
Cited – Woodward v Abbey National Plc CA 22-Jun-2006
The claimant appealed refusal to award damages after an alleged failure to give a proper reference, saying that the decision in Fadipe could not stand with the later decision in Rhys-Harper. She said that she had suffered victimisation after making . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
Cited – Fecitt and Others v NHS Manchester EAT 23-Nov-2010
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
S.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that ‘A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate . .
Wrongly Decided – NHS Manchester v Fecitt and Others CA 25-Oct-2011
The appellant challenged reversal by the EAT of a finding that it had not unlawfully victimised the respondents for the making of a protected disclosure. The claimant had reported a co-worker exaggerating his qualifications. After repeated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248272