Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw (Victimisation Discrimination : Protected disclosure) [2014] UKEAT 0150_13_2401 (24 January 2014)

Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw (Victimisation Discrimination : Protected disclosure) [2014] UKEAT 0150_13_2401 (24 January 2014)

The Employment Judge did not err in law in holding that the three emails, when considered together, amounted to a qualifying disclosure of information under ERA section 43B(1)(d), as they communicated information about the danger to health and safety of employees, not merely opinion or allegation, and could be considered collectively even though sent to different individuals.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0150_13_2401
Parties
Appellant: Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Limited; Respondent: Mr A Shaw
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issue Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Whistleblowing, Unfair Dismissal, Victimisation, Health and Safety at Work
Employment Law Protected Disclosure Whistleblowing Unfair Dismissal Victimisation Health and Safety at Work

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Limited

Appellant

Mr A Shaw

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issue Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether multiple emails taken together can amount to a qualifying protected disclosure under ERA 1996 section 43B(1)(d)
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Judge erred in law in treating the emails as a disclosure of information rather than mere opinion or allegation

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge did not err in law in holding that the three emails, when considered together, amounted to a qualifying disclosure of information under ERA section 43B(1)(d), as they communicated information about the danger to health and safety of employees, not merely opinion or allegation, and could be considered collectively even though sent to different individuals.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The claim of unfair dismissal and detriment on the grounds of public interest disclosure may proceed to a full hearing.