This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Public interest disclosure: No protection from post-employment detriment

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand disabled

    Woodward v Abbey National plc [2005] All ER (D) 12 (Oct) EAT (0 other reports)

Key points

In Woodward v Abbey National plc UKEAT/0240/05/RN, the EAT holds:

  • The employment tribunal was correct to hold that s.48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not extend jurisdiction for complaints of detriment by whistleblowers to those who are no longer employed.
  • The employment tribunal and the EAT are bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Fadipe v Reed Nursing Personnel [2001] EWCA Civ 1885 unreported, in which it was held that post-termination detriment cannot be claimed for in matters such as health and safety and protected disclosures where claims are made only under s.48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
  • Fadipe was not overruled by the House of Lords in Rhys Harper v Relaxion [2003] IRLR 484, because that case dealt with a different area of the law. In cases involving race and sex discrimination or victimisation, post-termination claims are allowable provided they are closely connected with the employment.