Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council [2025] EWCA Civ 379 (03 April 2025)

Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council [2025] EWCA Civ 379 (03 April 2025)

Job applicants are not in a materially analogous position to workers or NHS applicants for the purposes of ERA and Article 14 ECHR. 'Job applicant' does not constitute a status under Article 14. The difference in treatment is objectively justified given Parliament's legitimate aim and proportionality. The appellant's disclosure was not connected to her job application, and she was not entitled to protection under ERA.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 379
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Phyllis Sullivan; Defendant/respondent: Isle of Wight Council; Intervener: Department for Business and Trade; Intervener: Protect
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Whistleblowing, Freedom of Expression, Article 14 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Statutory Interpretation, Objective Justification, Status Under Article 14
Employment Law Human Rights Law Discrimination Law Protected Disclosure Whistleblowing Freedom of Expression Article 14 ECHR Article 10 ECHR +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phyllis Sullivan

Claimant/appellant

Isle of Wight Council

Defendant/respondent

Department for Business and Trade

Intervener

Protect

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is a job applicant in a materially analogous position to workers or applicants for NHS posts under ERA?
  2. 2 Does being a job applicant amount to a 'status' for Article 14 ECHR purposes?
  3. 3 Is the difference in treatment under ERA objectively justifiable?

Ratio Decidendi

Job applicants are not in a materially analogous position to workers or NHS applicants for the purposes of ERA and Article 14 ECHR. 'Job applicant' does not constitute a status under Article 14. The difference in treatment is objectively justified given Parliament's legitimate aim and proportionality. The appellant's disclosure was not connected to her job application, and she was not entitled to protection under ERA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No extension of ERA protection to job applicants
  • No declaration of incompatibility