McFarlane v Bombardier Aerospace, Short Br...Stephen CunninghamWendy Baillie [2016] NIIT 00093_15IT (14 June 2016)

McFarlane v Bombardier Aerospace, Short Br...Stephen CunninghamWendy Baillie [2016] NIIT 00093_15IT (14 June 2016)

The claimant made a protected disclosure, but failed to prove that any detriment suffered was materially influenced by the protected disclosure. The respondent's actions were not connected in the requisite way to the protected disclosure, and the disclosure was not deprived of protection for lack of good faith.

Citation
[2016] NIIT 00093_15IT
Parties
Claimant: Colin McFarlane; Respondent: Bombardier Aerospace, Short Brothers; Respondent: Stephen Cunningham; Respondent: Wendy Baillie
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
14 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Whistleblowing, Detriment, Good Faith, Burden of Proof, Res Judicata
Employment Law Protected Disclosure Whistleblowing Detriment Good Faith Burden of Proof Res Judicata

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin McFarlane

Claimant

Bombardier Aerospace, Short Brothers

Respondent

Stephen Cunningham

Respondent

Wendy Baillie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the claimant make a protected disclosure?
  2. 2 Was any such protected disclosure deprived of protection because of a lack of good faith?
  3. 3 Was the claimant subjected to one or more of the detrimental acts alleged?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant made a protected disclosure, but failed to prove that any detriment suffered was materially influenced by the protected disclosure. The respondent's actions were not connected in the requisite way to the protected disclosure, and the disclosure was not deprived of protection for lack of good faith.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed