Chatterjee v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust (VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION - Protected disclosure) [2019] UKEAT 0047_19_2309 (23 September 2019)

Chatterjee v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust (VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION - Protected disclosure) [2019] UKEAT 0047_19_2309 (23 September 2019)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly analyse and engage with its own findings of fact and the reasons for the Respondent’s conduct, particularly in relation to whether the protected disclosures materially influenced the alleged detriments. The Tribunal also failed to address the burden of proof under Section 48(2) ERA 1996 and did not sufficiently consider the mental processes of the decision-makers. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted for reconsideration.

Citation
[2019] UKEAT 0047_19_2309
Parties
Appellant: Claimant (Appellant); Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
23 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; matter remitted for reconsideration by a differently constituted Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Whistleblowing, Victimisation, Detrimental Treatment, Burden of Proof, Section 47 B Employment Rights Act 1996
Employment Law Protected Disclosure Whistleblowing Victimisation Detrimental Treatment Burden of Proof Section 47 B Employment Rights Act 1996

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (Appellant)

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal correctly applied the legal test for detriment on grounds of protected disclosure under Section 47B ERA 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal properly addressed the burden of proof under Section 48(2) ERA 1996
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal adequately analysed the reasons for the Respondent's conduct and the mental processes of decision-makers

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly analyse and engage with its own findings of fact and the reasons for the Respondent’s conduct, particularly in relation to whether the protected disclosures materially influenced the alleged detriments. The Tribunal also failed to address the burden of proof under Section 48(2) ERA 1996 and did not sufficiently consider the mental processes of the decision-makers. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; matter remitted for reconsideration by a differently constituted Tribunal.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The cross-appeal is dismissed.