Legal Interventions
We sometimes intervene in high-profile legal cases that are important to public policy, the wider interpretation of the law and our strategic priorities. There are situations when a case challenges the established position, going well beyond the facts of the case at hand. Where the legal question at play aligns with our policy priorities, where the case has the potential to impact many more whistleblowers in the future, and where we have the resources to do so, we may ask permission from the court to intervene as an independent third party.
We only intervene when we can add value for the court over and above the submissions and evidence of the main parties. We intervene as an independent third party, to present the position of Protect. Our arguments and evidence are different and may not align with either those of the worker or employer. The case needs to align with our mission and policy priorities at the time and needs to have the potential to significantly change the interpretation of the law. We also only intervene if we have the resources to do so at the time and the benefits outweigh the risks we have identified.
Cases in which Protect has intervened:
This case considered whether workers could get compensation for non-financial losses in whistleblowing detriment claims. Read more
This case considered whether a worker could bring a claim against their employer for having suffered victimisation for making a protected disclosure to that employer before the start of the employment. Read more
This case considered whether the objectively reasonable conduct of a whistleblower could be subjectively separated from the whistleblowing. Read more
This case considered ERA 1996 and the rights of employees to bring a claim against co-workers and their employer under s47B. Read more
Supreme Court and Court of Appeal – considered whether judicial office holders can rely on the protections afforded by PIDA. Read more
This case considered the public interest test within PIDA and the ERA 1996. Read more
This case considered the application of PIDA to tripartite working relationships generally, and junior doctors specifically. Read more
Supreme Court – which concerned the application of whistleblowing legislation to LLP members and partners.
This case considered whether an employer could be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees causing whistleblower detriment. Read more
This case considered the definition of good faith, a requirement for disclosures to be protected by PIDA at the time. Read more