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 a protected disclosure, but after having left the company. The company said that the Act did not protect her once she had left their employment.
Held: The decision in Fadipe could not stand alongside the Lords’ decision in Rhys-Harper. Four Acts sought to protect employees against victimisation, and it would be inconsistent to assume with no other reason that one kind of victimisation was given a post employment remedy but not another. The whistle blowing employee must be given protection after leaving the employment: ‘The public interest, which led to the demand for this Act to protect individuals who make certain disclosures of information in the public interest and to give them an action in respect of that victimisation, would surely be sold short by allowing the former employer to victimise his former employee with impunity. It simply makes no sense at all to protect the current employee but not the former employee, especially since the frequent response of the embittered exposed employer may well be dismissal and a determination to make life impossible for the nasty little sneak for as long thereafter as he can. If it is in the public interest to blow the whistle, and the Act shows that it is, then he who blows the whistle should be protected when he becomes victimised for doing so, whenever the retribution is exacted. ‘
Judges:
Lord Justice Ward, Maurice Kay LJ, Wilson LJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 822, Times 11-Jul-2006, [2006] 4 All ER 1209, [2006] IRLR 677, [2006] ICR 1436
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 47(B)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Fadipe v Reed Nursing Personell CA 4-Dec-2001
Failure to give proper reference. ECJ judgment giving right to make complaint only if cause was result of complaint over health and safety matters.
Held: The appeal failed. The section did not protect former workers: ‘section 44 does not, on . .
Cited – Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions HL 19-Jun-2003
The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation . .
See Also – Woodward v Abbey National Plc EAT 18-Jun-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Amendment – Application for leave to amend IT1. Respondent opposes. Leave to amend given in some respects and refused in others. Lack of adequate reasons for the decision. Remitted to . .
See Also – Diana Woodward v Abbey National Plc EAT 20-Jul-2005
EAT Public Interest Disclosure
Claimant claims that some years after the termination of her employment, she was caused detriment by her ex-employers due to having been a whistleblower, and makes claims . .
Cited – Wilson v Chatterton CA 1946
The court considered the circumstances under which it could depart from its previous decision. Scott LJ said that it might be allowed on the basis of the earlier decision ‘being inconsistent with general principles laid down by the House of Lords . .
Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
Cited – Wilson v Chatterton CA 1946
The court considered the circumstances under which it could depart from its previous decision. Scott LJ said that it might be allowed on the basis of the earlier decision ‘being inconsistent with general principles laid down by the House of Lords . .
Cited – Davis v Johnson HL 2-Jan-1978
The court was asked to interpret the 1976 Act to see whether its protection extended to cohabitees as well as to wives. In doing so it had to look at practice in the Court of Appeal in having to follow precedent.
Held: The operation of the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Cumbria County Council v Carlisle-Morgan EAT 29-Jan-2007
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 . .
Cited – Rank Nemo (DMS) Ltd and Others v Coutinho CA 20-May-2009
The claimant had succeeded in a claim for discrimination and registered it for enforcement, but it had still not been paid.
Held: Although the Employment Tribunal had no role in enforing its own decisions, the claimant could return to the . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.242671
