N Hall v Paragon Finance PLC
[2024] EAT 181
Ian Ritson v Milan Babic Architects Limited
2 May 2024
[2024] EAT 95
Employment Appeal Tribunal
An employee claimed he was unfairly fired for whistleblowing about his employer potentially breaking furlough rules. The court sided with the employer, finding the employee didn't actually make protected disclosures, and he was fired for redundancy, not for whistleblowing.
Key Facts
- •Ian Ritson, an architect, was dismissed by Milan Babic Architects Limited for alleged redundancy after less than two years of service.
- •The dismissal occurred shortly after the introduction of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS).
- •Ritson claimed automatic unfair dismissal due to protected disclosures and detriments suffered because of those disclosures.
- •Ritson's alleged protected disclosures were text messages to his employer expressing concerns about the employer's potential non-compliance with CJRS rules.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed Ritson's claims, finding the disclosures did not meet the criteria for qualifying disclosures and that his dismissal was for redundancy.
- •The ET found that five detriments were proven but were not caused by the protected disclosures.
Legal Principles
Definition of a protected disclosure under section 43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA).
Employment Rights Act 1996
Elements of a qualifying disclosure under section 43B of the ERA, including the requirement of a reasonable belief that the disclosure is in the public interest and tends to show a legal obligation breach.
Employment Rights Act 1996
Standard of 'likely' breach of legal obligation: more probable than not, not merely a possibility (Kraus v Penna).
Kraus v Penna [2004] IRLR 260 EAT
Guidance on the 'public interest' requirement in Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2018] ICR 731, including the consideration of subjective belief and its reasonableness.
Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2018] ICR 731
Automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure under section 103A of the ERA.
Employment Rights Act 1996
Unfair dismissal due to redundancy under section 105(1) of the ERA.
Employment Rights Act 1996
Separability principle: distinguishing between protected disclosure and associated conduct (Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Ltd).
Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Ltd [2022] ICR 1513
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The ET's findings that the disclosures were not qualifying disclosures were permissible and did not involve an error of law. The ET adequately addressed the public interest question and the issue of causation. The ET permissibly found the dismissal was for redundancy, and that detriments were not caused by the protected disclosures.