Day v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust and Another: EAT 9 Mar 2016

EAT (Victimisation Discrimination: Protected Disclosure) A Specialist Registrar in Medical Training worked under a contract of employment with Lewisham NHS Trust. He made disclosures about patient safety, and repeated them to Health Education England (‘HEE’) who arranged his training placements, were responsible for paying a substantial part of his salary to Lewisham, and who regularly reviewed his progress as a doctor in training. He claimed to have been treated detrimentally by HEE as a result of his repeated disclosure to it. Since HEE was not his employer, within the scope of s.230 ERA 1996, and was not within any of the categories in s.43K of the ERA 1996 as the Tribunal interpreted it, it struck out his claim against HEE. On appeal, it was argued that a purposive approach, underpinned by Article 10 of the ECHR, should be taken to the interpretation of the statute, and that the ET had been wrong to construe the section as it did. The appeal was rejected.

Langstaff J
[2016] UKEAT 0250 – 15 – 0903, [2016] ICR 878, [2016] IRLR 415, [2016] Med LR 269
Employment Rights Act 1996 43 230
England and Wales
CitedBP Plc v Elstone and Another EAT 31-Mar-2010
The central question in this appeal was whether an employee/worker who complained of suffering a detriment from his current . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromDay v Health Education England and Others CA 5-May-2017
This appeal concerns the proper construction of section 43K (whistleblowers) and the application of that section to a certain category of doctors operating in the health service.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Human Rights

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560988