The claimant had been employed by the respondent authority as a planning officer.   The issue central to this case arose between 2014 and 2016 when the claimant and her husband had dealings with the local authority relating to an issue with a property they owned.  They had made complaints that a sewer running from their property was an environmental hazard and the authority had responsibility for it.  As she was unhappy with how the local authority dealt with that complaint, she lodged a formal grievance.   This then resulted in the claimant resigning from her position as a planning officer.

The claimant brought various claims to the Employment Tribunal but the one that came before the Court of Appeal centred upon the detriment suffered as a result of a protected disclosure.  The Employment Tribunal found that there could be no detriment as the complaints she made were in her capacity as a householder within that local authority and not by virtue of being an employee of the local authority.

The Court of Appeal had to decide whether there was an error in law in the interpretation of Section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Article 67B of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996) and whether the complaint was a protected disclosure.   The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim stating that even if the disclosures were protected under the 1996 Act it was not made out that there had been a detriment as a result.  However, they felt it necessary to discuss the scope of protected disclosures and whether it would apply to this situation.

The Court of Appeal stated that the meaning of detriment for protected disclosures should be the same as that seen in discrimination.  Therefore, there was reference to Waltham Forest LBC v Martin when it was held that to bring a claim in the employment tribunal for detriment it must arise within the field of work.  They further held that it was the intention of Parliament to ensure that the scope of detriment was the same across the statutes covering protected disclosures and discrimination.  Indeed, the fact that Part V of the 1996 Act (Part VI in the 1996 NI Order) is entitled ‘Protection from Suffering Detriment in Employment’ was indicative that the detriment had to occur within the employment of the individual and could not be outside.  As a result, it was held that the disclosure raised by the claimant was one that operated by virtue of her home ownership and not as a result of her employment.  Therefore, it did not receive the protection under the legislation and her appeal was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This case provides an interpretation of the scope of the law relating to detriments from protected disclosures under the Employment rights legislation.  Whilst it did seem clear from the face of the legislation that it must have occurred in the employment setting, this was confirmed by the Court of Appeal.  This keeps the law on protected disclosures and detriment restricted to issues that arise in employment and it does not extend to other issues that an employee may have with the employer’s services that are given to the wider public. 
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/2180.html