Search

How can we help?

Icon

Whistleblowing: ‘Public Interest’ developments

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) recently revisited the issue of whether an employee’s disclosure was made in the public interest. 

In Morgan v Royal Mencap Society, the Claimant complained about her cramped working conditions, arguing that they posed a risk to her health and safety.  She maintained that her complaint amounted to a protected disclosure for whistleblowing purpose.  The tribunal disagreed and struck out the Claimant’s claim at a preliminary hearing on the grounds that the Claimant’s disclosure was not in the public interest.

Disclosures made after June 2013 must be made in the public interest (and also satisfy other legislative requirements) in order to attract protection under the whistleblowing regime.  The public interest requirement was inserted into legislation to prevent employees complaining about breaches of their own contract of employment and claiming that such complaints attracted whistleblowing protection.

She maintained that her complaint amounted to a protected disclosure for whistleblowing purpose.

Employers were obviously pleased by the legislative changes, which made it harder for employees to bring valid whistleblowing claims, but we have seen the ‘public interest’ requirement being somewhat diluted in recent cases.  Following the Chesterton Global Ltd case last year, the EAT clarified that disclosures need not be in the interest of the public as a whole to attract protection.  In that case, a group of 100 senior managers were considered sufficient to satisfy the public interest requirement.

The EAT commented in Morgan that there was a high threshold to overcome before a whistleblowing case should be struck out at a preliminary hearing.  It stated that the tribunal should have taken the Claimant’s case at its strongest (being mindful that she had not given oral evidence) which it did not.  The EAT remitted the case to the tribunal again to fully consider the public interest issue.

Employers should watch this space as to how far the Tribunals are willing to stretch the ‘public interest’ requirement.

About this article

Disclaimer

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 16 May 2024
  • Immigration

What Employers need to know about Biometric Residence Permits

Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) are biometric immigration documents that are issued to non-EEA nationals and EEA nationals, who have been granted permission to stay in the UK.

art
  • 14 May 2024

Clarkslegal’s London team moves to new Chancery Lane office

The London office of Clarkslegal has relocated to Chancery House, on Chancery Lane. The staff is enthusiastic about the relocation because Chancery Lane has a longstanding association with the legal profession in London.

art
  • 10 May 2024
  • Employment

New duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment – coming October 2024

The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 is due to come into force in October 2024.

art
  • 09 May 2024
  • Employment

Labour Party Employment Law Proposals – Promises of further consultations and a softer approach

The Prime Minister recently announced a raft of changes, to be implemented in the next parliament, aimed at reducing the number of people who are economically inactive due to illness.

art
  • 09 May 2024
  • Corporate and M&A

Navigating corporate transparency: ECCTA reforms series – part 1

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) received Royal Assent in October 2023 and marked a pivotal moment in corporate governance and transparency.

art
  • 07 May 2024
  • Employment

Changes to TUPE rules from 1 July 2024

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (‘TUPE’) aim to safeguard employees’ rights on the transfer of a business or on the change of a service.