Dr Therese Mary William v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
[2024] EAT 58
Declan Durey v South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
8 November 2024
[2024] EAT 173
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A paramedic claimed his boss punished him for whistleblowing. A judge said the boss didn't, and a higher court agreed. The higher court also refused to answer a separate question about what kind of compensation is available in whistleblowing cases because the first judge hadn't answered it.
Key Facts
- •Declan Durey (claimant/appellant) was employed by South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (respondent) as a paramedic.
- •Durey claimed detrimental treatment due to protected disclosures (whistleblowing) and unfair/wrongful dismissal.
- •The Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims.
- •Durey appealed; the respondent cross-appealed on the issue of non-pecuniary loss awards for whistleblowing detriment.
- •Protect intervened in the cross-appeal.
- •Two key disclosures (2 and 9) were central to the appeal.
Legal Principles
A protected disclosure requires a reasonable belief that the disclosure is in the public interest and tends to show certain matters (e.g., criminal offence, breach of legal obligation, danger to health and safety).
Employment Rights Act 1996, sections 43A, 43B, 43C, 47B, 48(1A)
The Employment Tribunal must assess the reasonableness of the worker's belief, not substitute its own view.
Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2017] EWCA Civ 979
The EAT can only interfere with a Tribunal's decision on perversity grounds.
Fage UK Limited v Chobani UK Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 5
An appeal to the EAT must seek to set aside the Tribunal's decision; appeals on points of law not impacting the ultimate result are generally not allowed.
Harrod v Ministry of Defence [1981] ICR 8
The EAT may entertain a cross-appeal raising a pure point of law of wider significance, even without Tribunal findings of fact, but only in exceptional circumstances.
Rolls Royce plc v Unite the Union [2009] EWCA Civ 387; Hutcheson v Popdog Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 1580
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal did not err in its assessment of whether Durey's disclosures were protected or whether he suffered detrimental treatment because of them. The EAT found no perversity or error of law in the Tribunal's reasoning.
Cross-appeal dismissed.
The EAT determined it lacked the power to decide the issue of whether non-pecuniary loss awards are available for whistleblowing detriment claims, as the Tribunal had not decided this point.