Shinwari v Vue Entertainment Ltd (Victimisation Discrimination: Whistleblowing) [2015] UKEAT 0394_14_1203 (12 March 2015)

Shinwari v Vue Entertainment Ltd (Victimisation Discrimination: Whistleblowing) [2015] UKEAT 0394_14_1203 (12 March 2015)

The appeal was dismissed because the Employment Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the respondent’s actions were not on the grounds of the protected disclosure but were for properly separable and legitimate reasons, in accordance with established disciplinary policy. No assurance of confidentiality...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] UKEAT 0394_14_1203
Parties
Appellant: Claimant (Appellant); Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
12 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Victimisation Discrimination, Whistleblowing, Unfair Dismissal, Constructive Dismissal, Protected Disclosure
Employment Law Victimisation Discrimination Whistleblowing Unfair Dismissal Constructive Dismissal Protected Disclosure

Source-derived case record

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 8 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 suffered detriment or constructive dismissal on grounds of making a protected disclosure (whistleblowing)
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's actions were by reason of the protected disclosure or for separable, legitimate reasons
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was vicariously liable for actions of employees in response to the protected disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Employment Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the respondent’s actions were not on the grounds of the protected disclosure but were for properly separable and legitimate reasons, in accordance with established disciplinary policy. No assurance of confidentiality was found to have been given, and the respondent was not vicariously liable for the actions of other employees. The protected disclosure did not materially influence the employer’s actions, and there was no error of law in the Tribunal’s approach or findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed