M Carr v Bloomberg LP

M Carr v Bloomberg LP

The claimant's alleged protected disclosures lacked sufficient factual content and specificity to meet the statutory definition under section 43B ERA, and there was no reasonable prospect of success in establishing that the disclosures were made in the public interest or tended to show environmental damage or deliberate concealment by the respondent.

Parties
Appellant: Mr M Carr; Respondent: Bloomberg LP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures, Strike Out Applications, Public Interest, Environmental Damage, Retaliation, Unfair Dismissal
Employment Law Whistleblowing Protected Disclosures Strike Out Applications Public Interest Environmental Damage Retaliation Unfair Dismissal

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr M Carr

Appellant

Bloomberg LP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's alleged protected disclosures met the statutory definition under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in striking out certain disclosures and not others
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's disclosures contained sufficient factual content and specificity to satisfy the statutory criteria

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's alleged protected disclosures lacked sufficient factual content and specificity to meet the statutory definition under section 43B ERA, and there was no reasonable prospect of success in establishing that the disclosures were made in the public interest or tended to show environmental damage or deliberate concealment by the respondent.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • Protected Disclosures 1 and 4-7 struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success
  • Full merits hearing to proceed only on remaining claims not related to struck out disclosures