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 dismissal of her claim.
Held: The minimum requirement of the Act was that the disclosures were made in good faith. Section 43G(1) required also reasonable belief that the information was true, that it was not made for personal gain, that she would suffer detriment if disclosure was made, and an overall requirement of reasonableness. Good faith meant honest and more according to the context, but honesty might be a requirement also of the other elements. Where an employee, in making a relevant disclosure, has mixed motives, good and bad, the disclosure will not necessarily have been made in bad faith. The statutory protection is afforded to those who make disclosures in the public interest. There should only be a finding of absence of good faith if the predominant motive was ulterior. The tribunal had found the main, if not sole motive to be personal animosity, and it was not for an appellate court to disturb that finding. Appeal dismissed.
Judges:
Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Wall Lord Justice Jacob
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 964, Times 06-Sep-2004, [2004] IRLR 687, [2004] 4 All ER 839, [2005] ICR 97
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 43B 43G(1), Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 5
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers Centre EAT 22-Sep-2003
The employee claimed that the behaviour which gave rise to her dismissal was a protected disclosure, and that her motive was irrelevant.
Held: The fact that what was disclosed was true was not conclusive to protect the disclosure. The court . .
Cited – Horrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the . .
Cited – ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon EAT 19-Jan-2001
. .
Cited – ALM Medical Services Limited v Bryan Bladon CA 26-Jul-2002
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 . .
Cited – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
Cited by:
Cited – Babula 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. . .
Cited – Bachnak v Emerging Markets Partnership (Europe) Ltd EAT 27-Jan-2006
EAT The claimant had worked as an adviser for the respondent identifying investment opportunities. He said he had been unfairly dismissed after disclosing that the company had overpaid for an investment. He now . .
Cited – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust EAT 18-Mar-2011
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Disciplinary and grievance procedure
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
(1) An employee who has been dismissed because of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199313