Berwick v National Westminster Bank PLC Mark Crimmins (Unauthorised Deduction of Wages Other) [2022] NIit 02063_20it (13 April 2022)

Berwick v National Westminster Bank PLC Mark Crimmins (Unauthorised Deduction of Wages Other) [2022] NIit 02063_20it (13 April 2022)

The claimant did not make any protected disclosures as defined by Article 67B; her communications were normal credit sanctioner queries and did not convey information tending to show breach of legal obligation. She did not hold a reasonable belief at the time that such breaches occurred. No causal link between alleged disclosures and detriment was established. The respondent followed procedures and did not subject the claimant to detriment for whistleblowing.

Citation
[2011] IRLR 884
Parties
Claimant: Claimant; First Named Respondent: National Westminster Bank Plc; Second Named Respondent: Second-named respondent
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
13 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosure, Detrimental Treatment, Burden of Proof, Good Faith, Public Interest
Employment Law Whistleblowing Protected Disclosure Detrimental Treatment Burden of Proof Good Faith Public Interest

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 5 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Claimant

National Westminster Bank Plc

First Named Respondent

Second-named respondent

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the claimant make protected disclosures pursuant to Article 67(B) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996?
  2. 2 Was the claimant subjected to detriment by the respondent on foot of having made protected disclosures, contrary to Article 70(B)?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant did not make any protected disclosures as defined by Article 67B; her communications were normal credit sanctioner queries and did not convey information tending to show breach of legal obligation. She did not hold a reasonable belief at the time that such breaches occurred. No causal link between alleged disclosures and detriment was established. The respondent followed procedures and did not subject the claimant to detriment for whistleblowing.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against second-named respondent dismissed upon withdrawal.
  • Claim of detriment on grounds of protected disclosures against first-named respondent dismissed.