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 could look to motive, and a bad motive might defeat the protection even if the disclosure was true, and the tribunal was entitled to look to her behaviour both before and after the disclosure. A disclosure made for reasons of personal animosity was not protected. However the claimant was entitled to amend her pleadings to add an ordinary unfair dismissal claim even though this was out of time.
Judges:
His Hon Judge McMullen QC
Citations:
[2003] EAT 0508 – 02 – 2209, Times 01-Dec-2003, [2003] UKEAT 0508 – 02 – 2209, Gazette 15-Jan-2004, EAT/508/02
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 103A
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore EAT 2-May-1996
The claimant had been summarily dismissed. His application at first made no mention of a complaint that it had related to his trades union activities. He wrote to the secretary seeking amendment of his claim to include a claim that his dismissal was . .
Cited – Bryant v Housing Corporation CA 21-May-1998
A complainant before an industrial tribunal will only be allowed to amend her statement in order to add an allegation of victimisation for sex discrimination where this arises naturally from the facts alleged. In this case the new claim was rather . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.191838
