Whistleblowing & Victimisation (Overlap)

Authorities (4)

• Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 380, [2008] ICR 799, [2008] IRLR 530, CA [judgment]
  Lord Justice Mummery, Lady Justice Arden, and Lord Justice Longmore

  Whistleblowing; unfair dismissal; burden of proof as to the reason for dismissal. The legal burden of proving the reason for dismissal rests on the employer throughout, and it is for the employer to show that the reason was not the protected disclosure. The employee bears only an evidential burden: it is enough for her to challenge the employer's evidence and to produce some evidence of a different reason. The tribunal is not obliged to accept the reason advanced by either party, and rejecting the employer's reason does not compel a finding that the disclosure was the reason.

• Fecitt v NHS Manchester [2012] IRLR 64 [judgment]
  Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Elias, and Lord Justice Davis

  Whistleblowing; causation; the disclosure need only 'materially influence' the employer's negative treatment (s.47B).

• Panayiotou v Kernaghan [2014] IRLR 500 [judgment]
  The Honourable Mr Justice Lewis

  Whistleblowing; dismissal; a distinction can be drawn between the *fact* of the disclosure and the *manner* (unreasonable) in which it was made.

• Balfour Beatty Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd v Blackburn [2023] EAT 121 [judgment]
  Judge Shanks

  Whistleblowing; the tribunal must determine if the disclosure was the *cause* of the detriment.