HR Articles

A shudder down your spine as darkness falls, it is only at night at which she calls.
The hairs on the back of your neck stand straight, as she rises from the depths full of hate.
A whistle that seems so beautiful and inviting, is ultimately, deceptive, dangerous and frightening.
Awaiting a deadly attack which fills you with fear, deep down you know she will soon appear.
You must be brave, stand before her and yell, before this wraith drags you into hell. 

In Smith v Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust, a nurse won his claim for unfair dismissal, with the Employment Tribunal finding he had been dismissed for making protected disclosures.

The Supreme Court, in Jhuti v Royal Mail, has reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision and held that an employee was unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure despite the fact that the decision-maker was unaware of the disclosure.

The Supreme Court has ruled on the Gilham v Ministry of Justice case and held that while judges could not be classed as workers, it would be a violation of their human rights to exclude them from whistleblowing protections.

In Timis v Osipov, the Court of Appeal held that two directors were personally liable for detrimental treatment following protected disclosures even where the detriment in question amounted to a dismissal. The claimant was dismissed by International Petroleum Limited (IPL) after making a number of protected disclosures on issues relating to poor corporate governance.

In Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth the Court of Appeal has confirmed that to be protected under whistleblower legislation, disclosures need to be more than mere allegations and have sufficient factual content and specificity of a relevant failure set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The Claimant in the case of Wilson Solicitors LLP and others v Roberts was a solicitor and member of the LLP. He was also Managing Partner and held several compliance roles. A complaint of bullying was made against one of the Senior Partners and the Claimant was appointed to investigate it.

In the case of Malik v Cenkos Securities Plc, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) found that for there to be a causal link between a protected disclosure and detrimental treatment, the individual accused of the detrimental treatment must be personally motivated by the disclosure.

In the recent case of Bamieh v EULEX Kosovo and ors, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) found that an employee could bring whistleblowing detriment claims against co-workers for events which allegedly took place whilst on secondment in Kosovo.

We reported on the EAT’s decision in Royal Mail v Jhuti back in the summer. Unhappy with the EAT’s decision, Royal Mail appealed to the Court of Appeal.