All items: Whistleblowing

• expand

  Hibbins v Hesters Way Neighbourhood Project [2009] IRLR 198 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Public interest disclosures: Whistleblowing provisions protect disclosure of third-party wrongdoing

    Date:

    23 January 2009

    In Hibbins v Hesters Way Neighbourhood Project EAT/0275/08, the EAT held that a teacher's disclosure that a prospective student was a suspect in a criminal case was capable of being a protected disclosure for the purposes of the whistleblowing legislation.

• expand

  Jaine v Mears Group Plc (Mears Limited) ET/1812554/08 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Whistleblowing employee suffered detriments

    Date:

    11 February 2010

    An employment tribunal upheld a claim that an individual had suffered detriments as a result of making a protected disclosure about her employer.

• expand

  Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2016] IRLR 422 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 June 2016

    Beth Staniland is a trainee solicitor, and Emma Cousins, Ciara Jenkins, Iain Naylor and Lucy Sorell are associates at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.

• expand

  Kraus v Penna plc and another [2004] IRLR 260 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Whistleblowing update

    Date:

    18 August 2006

    Legislation protecting whistleblowers was introduced seven years ago. This article reviews the legislation and considers some of the substantial body of case law arising out of it. It also looks at the components of an effective whistleblowing policy.

  • Case round-up: whistleblowing

    Date:

    9 December 2003

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds: covering whistleblowing.

• expand

  Local Government Yorkshire and Humber v Shah EAT/0587/11 & EAT/0026/12 (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Acas code of practice: Uplift to compensation for failure to follow code not available to workers

    Date:

    23 January 2013

    In Local Government Yorkshire and Humber v Shah EAT/0587/11 & EAT/0026/12, the EAT held that the potential uplift in compensation awarded where an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures" applies only in the case of employees. A worker who was subjected to an unlawful detriment was not entitled to an uplift.

  • EAT holds workers are not entitled to compensation uplift where employer fails to comply with Acas code

    Date:

    6 September 2012

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that only employees, and not workers, can be awarded a compensation uplift of up to 25% where the respondent has unreasonably failed to comply with the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures". 

• expand

  London Borough of Harrow v Knight [2003] IRLR 140 EAT (3 reports relating to this case)

  • Whistleblowing update

    Date:

    18 August 2006

    Legislation protecting whistleblowers was introduced seven years ago. This article reviews the legislation and considers some of the substantial body of case law arising out of it. It also looks at the components of an effective whistleblowing policy.

  • Public interest disclosure: Strict test of causation in "whistleblowing" cases of victimisation

    Date:

    20 June 2003

    In London Borough of Harrow v Knight, the EAT holds that employment tribunals must set out the stages of inquiry required by the statutory "protected disclosure" provisions, and consider them separately and in turn, before articulating the decision in an individual case.

  • Case round-up: whistleblowing, GOQs and ill-health termination

    Date:

    10 December 2002

    This week's case round-up by Eversheds covers whistleblowing, GOQs and ill-health termination.

• expand

  McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust [2016] IRLR 742 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Whistleblowing: Whistleblower can be both employee or worker of agency and worker of end user

    Date:

    31 December 2016

    In McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust [2016] IRLR 742 EAT, the EAT held that, in order for a claimant to be a "worker" within the meaning of the extended "whistleblower" definition in s.43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, all that is required is that the end user substantially determined the terms under which the claimant carried out his or her work. It is not necessary to show that the end user determined those terms to any greater or lesser degree than the agency, of whom the claimant might also be an employee or worker.

  • Agency worker able to bring whistleblowing claim against end user

    Date:

    11 August 2016

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that where the terms of an engagement have been substantially determined by both the employer agency and the end user, both are capable of being the individual's employer for the purposes of the whistleblowing legislation.

• expand

  Meares v Medway Primary Care Trust EAT/0065/10 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 February 2011

    Tori O'Neil, associate, and Judith Harris, legal director, at Addleshaw Goddard detail the latest rulings.

• expand

  Melia v Magna Kansei Ltd [2006] IRLR 117 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Public interest disclosure: Compensation for whistleblower's detriment to date of dismissal

    Date:

    24 March 2006

    In Melia v Magna Kansei Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that where an employee has been subjected to detriment for having made a protected disclosure and then resigned claiming constructive dismissal, compensation for injured feelings should be assessed over the entire period up to the date of termination.

• expand

  Morgan v Royal Mencap Society [2016] IRLR 428 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Morgan v Royal Mencap Society: disclosure could be in the public interest

    Date:

    3 June 2016

    In Morgan v Royal Mencap Society, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that an employment tribunal was wrong to strike out a whistleblowing claim on the basis that an employee's complaint about cramped working conditions was not "in the public interest". Naomi Clarkson explains this recent employment case.