Declan Durey v South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
[2024] EAT 173
Dr Therese Mary William v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
24 April 2024
[2024] EAT 58
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A doctor claimed her employer punished her for whistleblowing. A judge said the doctor's concerns weren't strong enough to be protected disclosures and that even if they were, they didn't cause her employer's actions. The appeal court agreed.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Therese Mary William (Appellant) appealed an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision dismissing her claim of detriment under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- •The Appellant alleged detriments due to protected disclosures concerning: (1) lack of handover by Dr. Ezzati; (2) rejection of her feeding guidelines; (3) NEC rates.
- •The ET found that the Appellant did not have a reasonable belief her disclosures regarding guidelines and NEC rates endangered health and safety, and that the disclosures did not materially influence the Respondent's decisions.
- •The Respondent's actions, while unreasonable, were not motivated by the protected disclosure regarding the handover.
Legal Principles
In a section 47B claim, if a decision-maker didn't know of protected disclosures, another individual's knowledge and motivation cannot be ascribed to them.
Malik v Centros Securities plc EAT/0100/17
For a disclosure to be protected, the worker must reasonably believe it's in the public interest and tends to show a failure to comply with a legal obligation or endanger health and safety.
Employment Rights Act 1996, sections 43B and 47B
'On the ground that W has made a protected disclosure' means the disclosure materially influenced the decision-maker.
Fecitt v NHS Manchester [2012] ICR 372
In unfair dismissal cases (section 103A), even if a decision-maker was unaware of a protected disclosure, the court can look beyond invented reasons to find the real reason for dismissal if a superior manipulated the decision.
Royal Mail Group v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55
New evidence on appeal is admissible only if it couldn't have been obtained with reasonable diligence, would probably influence the result, and is credible.
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The ET's findings that the Appellant lacked reasonable belief regarding guidelines and NEC rates, and that disclosures didn't materially influence decisions, were not erroneous.
Grounds 1 and 2 dismissed.
The ET's assessment of the Appellant's belief and the accuracy of her disclosures was reasonable and not perverse. The new evidence was deemed inadmissible.
Grounds 3 and 4 dismissed.
The ET correctly applied the legal principles. The ET's causation findings were supported by evidence and not perverse. The court declined to overturn *Malik v Centros Securities plc* in light of *Royal Mail Group v Jhuti*.