Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
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.
The claimant made protected disclosures in the public interest regarding the second respondent’s conduct. The respondents subjected her to detriments, including exclusion, denial of access to materials, and engineered her exit, all materially influenced by her protected disclosures. The respondents’ conduct breached the implied term of trust and confidence, entitling the claimant to resign. Her resignation was a constructive dismissal, which was both unfair and automatically unfair under s.103A ERA as the principal reason was her protected disclosures.
Source excerpt
The EAT held that the tribunal gave insufficient reasons on protected disclosure complaints and the timing of dismissal, and remitted the case for a fresh hearing.
Optosafe Ltd & Ors v Robertson (Rev1) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) (05 January 2026)
High Court trial on breach of contract and harassment arising from LinkedIn posts, emails and reports. The claimants succeeded and obtained injunction and damages.
Rogerson v Erhard-Jensen Ontological/phenomenological Initiative Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1547 (01 December 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that commencing arbitration against a whistleblower can be an actionable detriment under the ERA and is not barred by judicial proceedings immunity.
Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd (Rev1) [2025] EWCA Civ 1466 (14 November 2025)
The Court of Appeal considered whether whistleblowing detriment claims could be amended to include dismissal-based allegations under section 47B ERA 1996.
The tribunal erred by failing to consider, as an alternative to strike out, permitting or requiring the claimant to amend or particularise her complaints against the third respondent in light of the further information and contentions she had advanced. Had the tribunal properly considered this, it could not have properly struck out the complaints as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Source excerpt
The Employment Appeal Tribunal refused a non-party’s request for case documents, holding that open justice did not require disclosure on the facts.
The Employment Tribunal made findings in fact for which there was no evidential basis, failed to put crucial matters to witnesses, and reached conclusions not raised by either party, amounting to serious procedural irregularity and error of law.
Source excerpt
The EAT held that early conciliation only extends unfair dismissal time limits by post-EDT days, and dismissed the appeal as out of time.
Explore more
