Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Tiplady v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2019]
Tiplady v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2019]
Published on: 28/01/2020
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister

Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University.  As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal.   At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Background

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

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 28/01/2020