Williams v Brown (VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION - Protected Disclosure) [2019] UKEAT 0044_19_2910 (29 October 2019)

Williams v Brown (VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION - Protected Disclosure) [2019] UKEAT 0044_19_2910 (29 October 2019)

The disclosure relied upon by the claimant did not contain sufficient specific factual information to be reasonably capable of tending to show that a criminal offence had been committed. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the assertion of 'manipulation' was too vague and did not necessarily connote criminality or dishonesty. Therefore, the disclosure was not a qualifying or protected disclosure under s.43B(1)(a) ERA 1996, and the claims were properly dismissed.

Citation
[2019] UKEAT 0044_19_2910
Parties
Appellant: Claimant (Appellant); Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
29 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Victimisation Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Whistleblowing, Fraud Act 2006, Employment Rights Act 1996
Employment Law Protected Disclosure Victimisation Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Whistleblowing Fraud Act 2006 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (Appellant)

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant made a protected disclosure under s.43B(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the disclosure contained sufficient factual content to tend to show a criminal offence
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was subjected to detriment or dismissal for making a protected disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The disclosure relied upon by the claimant did not contain sufficient specific factual information to be reasonably capable of tending to show that a criminal offence had been committed. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the assertion of 'manipulation' was too vague and did not necessarily connote criminality or dishonesty. Therefore, the disclosure was not a qualifying or protected disclosure under s.43B(1)(a) ERA 1996, and the claims were properly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the claimant's complaints is upheld.
  • Both the appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed.