Warburton v Northamptonshire Police (Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures & Victimisation) [2022] EAT 42 (14 March 2022)

Warburton v Northamptonshire Police (Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures & Victimisation) [2022] EAT 42 (14 March 2022)

The Employment Tribunal's findings on detriment and causation were based on misstatements of law and insufficient reasoning. The correct legal tests for victimisation and causation were not applied. The costs order under Rule 76(1)(b) was made without jurisdiction as an application for a stay is not a 'claim or response'.

Citation
[2022] EAT 42
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Mr D Warburton; Respondent/appellant: The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Liability and Costs Decisions
Outcome
Appeal allowed; victimisation claim remitted for rehearing by a different Employment Tribunal; costs appeal allowed; costs order set aside.
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Protected Disclosures, Whistleblowing, Costs Orders, Vetting Procedures
Employment Law Equality Law Victimisation Protected Disclosures Whistleblowing Costs Orders Vetting Procedures

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr D Warburton

Appellant/respondent

The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Liability and Costs Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal applied the correct legal test for victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the claimant suffered a detriment
  3. 3 Whether the protected act caused the alleged detriment

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal's findings on detriment and causation were based on misstatements of law and insufficient reasoning. The correct legal tests for victimisation and causation were not applied. The costs order under Rule 76(1)(b) was made without jurisdiction as an application for a stay is not a 'claim or response'.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; victimisation claim remitted for rehearing by a different Employment Tribunal; costs appeal allowed; costs order set aside.

Orders

  • Victimisation claim remitted for rehearing by a different Employment Tribunal.
  • Costs order under Rule 76(1)(b) set aside.