Ian Ritson v Milan Babic Architects Limited
[2024] EAT 95
N Hall v Paragon Finance PLC
21 November 2024
[2024] EAT 181
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Someone was fired and said it was because they reported wrongdoing (whistleblowing). A judge initially said some of the reports weren't protected, but a higher court said the judge made mistakes. However, the higher court still agreed the firing was justified because the employee had other performance problems even before the reports.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Hall (claimant) was dismissed from Paragon Finance PLC (respondent) for allegedly causing a serious breakdown in the working relationship.
- •Mr. Hall claimed automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996 for making protected disclosures (whistleblowing).
- •He relied on three disclosures (PD1, PD2, PD3), alleging breaches of accounting standards, IT security, and data protection.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) initially rejected PD1 and PD2, but accepted PD3 as a potential protected disclosure, but rejected Mr. Hall's claim based on causation.
- •Both Mr. Hall and Paragon Finance PLC appealed the ET's decision.
Legal Principles
Automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing
Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA), section 103A
Definition of a qualifying disclosure
ERA, section 43B
Interim relief application standard
Taplin v Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068 EAT; Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz [2011] IRLR 562 EAT
Standard of ET decision on interim relief
Dandpat v University of Bath [2009] UKEAT/0408/09; Parsons v Airplus International Ltd UKEAT/0023/16; Raja v Secretary of State for Justice UKEAT/0364/09
Separability principle in whistleblowing cases
Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Ltd [2022] ICR 1513
Burden of proof in unfair dismissal claims
Maund v Penwith District Council [1984] ICR 143 CA; Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 380
Outcomes
Claimant's appeal dismissed; Respondent's cross-appeal allowed.
The ET's findings on the protected disclosures were flawed due to misunderstandings of the parties' cases and erroneous reliance on the claimant's regulator's advice. However, the ET's causation finding was upheld as it considered pre-existing concerns about the claimant's behaviour.