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