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

B Kristensen v Portman Healthcare Limited

The EAT allowed an appeal in part in a whistleblowing and unfair dismissal case, correcting errors on principal reason, suspension, and limitation issues.

• Unfair dismissal
• Whistleblowing
• Protected disclosure detriment
• Wrongful dismissal
• Limitation under section 48 era
• Employment tribunal reasons and meek compliance

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

Oliver Price v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Section 41(1) FOIA applies to information in the Burlington Report obtained from the whistleblower and others, but not to material generated internally or not derived from another person. Section 40(2) FOIA applies to personal data within the Report, but the Council's redactions were overly broad and must be limited to only what is necessary to protect personal data. For most of the confidential information, the Council would have a public interest defence to disclosure, except for certain parts identified in the confidential Annex. The Council failed to adequately demonstrate that no other i…

Source excerpt

• Freedom of information
• Personal data
• Confidentiality
• Whistleblowing
• Public interest defence

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

David Green v The Lichfield Diocesan Board of Finance (Incorporated) & Anor

Employment Tribunal claim by a curate alleging whistleblowing detriments and perceived-disability discrimination was dismissed; some disclosures were protected, but causation and timing failed.

• Whistleblowing
• Direct discrimination
• Perceived disability
• Jurisdiction
• Time limits
• Employment-law

Read case analysis

Attorney General v Sandra Messi

The Employment Appeal Tribunal granted a restriction of proceedings order against Ms Sandra Messi, finding a long pattern of vexatious employment tribunal litigation.

• Vexatious litigation
• Restriction of proceedings
• Employment tribunals
• Interim relief
• Discrimination
• Whistleblowing

Read case analysis

Karl Schumacher v Ofsted

The Tribunal dismissed Mr Schumacher’s appeal against Ofsted’s refusal to register him as a children’s home manager, finding he was not fit under regulation 28.

• Care standards act 2000
• Children’s homes (england) regulations 2015
• Fitness to manage children’s homes
• Apparent bias
• Procedural fairness
• Whistleblowing

Read case analysis

Elena Bibescu v Clare Jenner Limited t/a Jenner’s

The EAT upheld dismissal of a whistleblowing dismissal claim but remitted the detriment claim under section 47B, finding errors in the tribunal’s public interest analysis.

• Whistleblowing
• Unfair dismissal
• Protected disclosure
• Detriment
• Public interest
• Section 43b era

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