England and Wales Case Law

The Laurels Family Assessment Limited v M Y Kay

The majority of the employment tribunal properly found, on the evidence, that the claimant made protected disclosures to her employer and the independent visitor, and that the principal reason for her dismissal was those disclosures. The tribunal's findings were not perverse, nor was its reasoning inadequate. The employer's appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Unfair dismissal
• Protected disclosures
• Whistleblowing
• Automatic unfair dismissal
• Detrimental treatment
• Employment rights

Read case analysis

Muchererah v Rushcliffe Independent Hospitals (Kegworth) Ltd

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal against findings on protected disclosures, health and safety dismissal, statutory rights, and wages.

• Protected disclosures
• Automatic unfair dismissal
• Health and safety dismissal
• Assertion of statutory right
• Unlawful deduction from wages
• Perversity appeal

Read case analysis

OE Olarewaju v Bupa Care Services Limited

The Employment Tribunal's reasoning, though brief, was sufficient to inform the claimant why his application for interim relief failed; the evidence did not support a likely finding that dismissal was due to protected disclosures rather than misconduct.

Source excerpt

• Whistleblowing
• Protected disclosures
• Interim relief
• Unfair dismissal

Read case analysis

R Tedd v Surrey County Council

The EAT dismissed an appeal against strike out of an employment claim for failure to actively pursue it, holding the tribunal applied the correct two-stage approach.

• Strike out procedure
• Constructive dismissal
• Protected disclosures
• Case management
• Tribunal procedure
• Employment-tribunal-strike-out

Read case analysis

A Whitaker v White Rose Academies Trust & Anor

Employment Appeal Tribunal held the claimant had not pleaded a section 43K(1)(a) whistleblowing worker case against LEG and dismissed the appeal.

• Worker status
• Protected disclosures
• Unfair dismissal
• Unlawful deduction from wages
• Statutory interpretation
• Whistleblowing

Read case analysis

A Darlington v London Borough of Islington

The COT3 agreement, objectively construed, was intended to settle all existing and potential future claims against the respondent and others arising from the appellant’s allegations of protected disclosures during her employment at Hargrave, including detriments occurring after the agreement. The language of the agreement was sufficiently wide to bar the appellant’s subsequent claim for detriment based on the same disclosures, even though the alleged detriment (failure to appoint at Westbourne) occurred after the COT3 was signed.

Source excerpt

• Cot3 settlement agreements
• Protected disclosures
• Whistleblowing
• Jurisdictional bar
• Interpretation of settlement agreements

Read case analysis

U Prasad v Epsom & St Helier Hospital NHS Trust & Anor

The EAT dismissed an appeal against a £20,000 costs order, holding that the tribunal had correctly applied rule 76, given adequate reasons, and could proceed in the claimant’s absence.

• Whistleblowing
• Protected disclosures
• Race discrimination
• Sex discrimination
• Victimisation
• Costs orders

Read case analysis

U Prasad v Epsom & St Helier Hospital NHS Trust & Anor

The EAT dismissed an appeal against strike out, holding that Claim 6 was objectively pleaded only against Ms Totterdell, not the Trust.

• Whistleblowing
• Protected disclosures
• Race discrimination
• Sex discrimination
• Victimisation
• Case management

Read case analysis

Ian Rice v Wicked Vision Limited

The Court of Appeal is bound by Osipov to hold that section 47B(2) does not bar an employee from amending a claim to add a detriment claim based on dismissal against a co-worker or the employer vicariously, even without joining the co-worker, despite the court's disagreement with Osipov's statutory interpretation.

Source excerpt

• Whistleblowing
• Unfair dismissal
• Detriment claims
• Employment rights act 1996
• Protected disclosures
• Amendment of claims

Read case analysis

Dr Jayprakash Gosalakkal v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

The SUI report does not constitute new evidence with any reasonable prospect of altering the original liability judgment. There is no evidence of apparent bias by the tribunal judge. The appellant's dismissal was fair and unrelated to protected disclosures. The costs appeal fails as it is contingent on the liability appeal.

Source excerpt

• Unfair dismissal
• Whistleblowing
• Protected disclosures
• Practice and procedure
• New evidence
• Apparent bias

Read case analysis