Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) & Anor v Nurmohamed [2015]
Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) & Anor v Nurmohamed [2015]
Published on: 14/08/2015
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
Background

This UKEAT appeal concerns the meaning of the words "in the public interest" inserted into section 43B(1) of the GB Employment Rights Act 1996 by section 17 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. Note that those words have NOT been inserted into the NI whistleblowing legislation. We will come to the relevance of this case to NI whistleblowing cases in due course. 

The claimant/respondent in this case raised concerns about irregularities in relation to the reporting of actual costs and liabilities. His motivation was not to do with the wider public as such, more so he was concerned about the interests of his and 100 colleagues' bonuses, which would be negatively affected by the misreporting. 

The Appellants appealed the Employment Tribunal's decision in the claimant's favour on two grounds: first, that the Tribunal erred on concluding that disclosures made in the interest of the 100 senior managers was to a sufficient group of the public to amount to being a matter in the public interest; and second that it was for the Tribunal to determine objectively whether or not the disclosures were of real public interest, and this the Tribunal failed to do.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected both grounds of appeal: (1) the question for consideration under section 43B(1) of the 1996 Act is not whether the disclosure per se is in the public interest but whether the worker making the disclosure has a reasonable belief that the disclosure is made in the public interest; (2) the sole purpose of the amendment to section 43B(1) by section 17 of the 2013 Act was to reverse the effect of Parkins v Sodexho Ltd (2002). The words "in the public interest" were introduced to do no more than prevent a worker from relying upon a breach of his own contract of employment where the breach is of a personal nature and there are no wider public interest implications.

The EAT concluded:

"In the present case the protected disclosures made by the Respondent concerned manipulation of the accounts by the First Appellant's management which potentially adversely affected the bonuses of 100 senior managers. Whilst recognising that the person the Respondent was most concerned about was himself, the tribunal was satisfied that he did have the other office managers in mind. He referred to the central London area and suggested to Ms Farley that she should be looking at other central London office accounts (paragraph 151). He believed that the First Appellant, a well-known firm of estate agents, was deliberately mis-stating £2-3million of actual costs and liabilities throughout the entire office and department network. All this led the Tribunal to conclude that a section of the public would be affected and the public interest test was satisfied."
http://bit.ly/1O9eu8Z 

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 14/08/2015