Free, confidential whistleblowing advice
Call us on 020 3117 2520 or email us

Free, confidential whistleblowing advice
Call us on 020 3117 2520 or email us

Nicol v World Travel and Tourism Council [2024] EAT 42

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.

Wicked Vision Ltd v Mr I Rice [2024] EAT 29 and Ms G Treadwell v Barton Turns Development Ltd

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 Declan Durey v South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

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.

Amendments required to make the Hillsborough Law truly effective

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.

The contributions of whistleblowers – MPs debate

A Westminster Hall debate on the Contributions of Whistleblowers, held to mark World Whistleblowers Day, brought together key parliamentarians with strong opinions and perspectives on how the law and whistleblowing needs to be modernised. From exposing the lack of legal protections for self-employed people to pushing for a legal duty on employers to investigate matters that are raised by whistleblowers, the session included strong arguments that the whistleblowing legal framework is not working well enough, with the government minister Justin Madders, conceding the case for change.