Mark Ellis Mr Nicol had raised concerns to HR consultants about his CEO’s managerial style . The CEO was informed that concerns had been raised about her but was not told about their substance. Shortly afterwards, Mr Nicol was dismissed. Mr Nicol lost his s.103A dismissal claim because the ET found that the decision-maker—the CEO—had not been aware of the substance of the protected disclosure.
These two cases are about the same legal point. The ERA provides for two different causes of action for dismissal (s103A) and detriment (s47B). A s.47B detriment claim cannot be used when the detriment in question amounts to a dismissal as there is a different cause of action for dismissal claims. Only an employee can be dismissed so a worker who loses their job needs to bring a s47B detriment claim. However, since Osipov, employees have been able to bring a s.47B detriment claim for the decision to dismiss taken by a co-worker, in addition to (or instead of) a s.103A dismissal claim.
Mr Durey, a student paramedic, raised concerns about the reduction of students’ placement hours. He argued that he was victimised as a result and brought a detriment claim under Section47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). He did not have any financial loss and only claimed injury to feelings.
We support changes that contribute to the fight against tax fraud – anything that improves the ability of regulators to take action against wrongdoing is in the public interest. However, rewards are no substitute for a comprehensive whistleblowing framework.
The judgment has been handed down in a critical whistleblowing case at the Court of Appeal. Protect intervened in the case – and our intervention has helped retain valuable rights for whistleblowing employees.
MPs have had their first opportunity to vote on and debate the Public Office (Accountability) Bill – better known as the Hillsborough Law. Championed by the Hillsborough families and campaigners its being presented as a way to prevent future state cover-ups such as the one they faced after the Hillsborough disaster.
From the start of September 2025, the rules on fraud got tougher. Under the new Failure to Prevent Fraud offence in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA), large organisations can now face unlimited fines if they benefit from fraud – even when senior leaders had no direct involvement. The message is clear: ignorance is not a defence and turning a blind eye is no longer an option.
Embedding the Code of Ethics is challenge for any employer. But how can we ensure staff engage with and embody their organisation’s beliefs and values? In this blog we look at one approach that flips ethics on its head and breaks down barriers to Speaking Up.
Protect is intervening in a case at the Court of Appeal that is due to examine a critical aspect of whistleblowing law that concerns the statutory routes to liability and compensation available to a whistleblowing employee when they have been dismissed and victimised.
When Rowaa Ahmar joined the energy giant Drax as Head of Public Affairs & Policy she didn’t expect to end up in the middle of a whistleblower tribunal exposing deep dysfunction within the company. After a BBC documentary exposed the firm’s sustainability claims and environmental credentials Rowaa became increasingly concerned that Drax had misled the public, the government and its regulator Ofgem.
Now concluded with a settlementher, her case has exposed troubling details about the allocation of millions of pounds in government subsidies, as well as serving as a challenging tale of speaking up to powerful executives.
