". . . I can trust the solicitors at Quantrills to fully understand my situation and to give me both sound and appropriate advice . . ."
Chesterton Global Limited v Numohamed [Court of Appeal] | 2017
We have reported on the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) decision previously.
Briefly, Mr N was a director of Chesterton’s London office. On three occasions he raised with senior individuals allegations that the costs and liabilities were being misrepresented in Chesterton’s accounts. If this was correct, the misrepresentation had negatively affected the commission he was paid (as well as 100 other managers).
A key issue in the case was whether the discussions were ‘protected disclosures’ and, in particular, whether the disclosures could be ‘in the public interest’. Both the employment tribunal and the EAT concluded they were. Chesterton appealed to the COA.
The COA rejected arguments by Chesterton that a disclosure was only in the public interest if it:
- was in the interests of more than one person;
- furthers the interests of individuals other than workers (or employees) in their capacity as a worker (or employee).
Instead, it accepted arguments on behalf of Mr N that the question of whether a disclosure was in the public interest involved ‘consideration of all the circumstances’. This included:
- the numbers in the group whose interests were served by the disclosure.
- The nature of the interest affected and the extent to which they were affected by the wrongdoing which was the subject of the disclosure.
- The nature of the wrongdoing.
- The identity of the alleged wrongdoer.
In this case, the alleged extent of the wrongdoing (the misrepresentation in the accounts of between £2 million and £3 million) and that Chesterton was a large London estate agent, in addition to the fact that 100 or so employees were potentially affected all together meant that the employment tribunal and EAT had not been wrong to find the disclosures were in the public interest.
The COA, in giving its decision, reiterated (as the EAT had done so in its decision) that the issue was whether Mr N reasonably believed what he disclosed was in the public interest. The COA commented that it did not matter if what was alleged proved to be wrong.
The decision is not surprising and employers will need to be careful not to wrongly conclude that employees and workers are not protected against dismissal and detriment because the disclosures they make involve allegations of wrongdoing connected with their contract of employment. A number of factors can combine and together render something as potentially in the public interest and may lead to different conclusions depending on the individual circumstances.
Book a phone consultation
Apply for a FREE phone consultation with one of our experienced employment law solicitors to discuss your case, how we can help and how much it is likely to cost.
Selected evening and weekend appointments available.
Tell us about your case
Our online form is the easy way to tell us about your case and employment details.
Short of time? Our ‘save and resume’ features let you save your answers and complete the form later.
Reasons to Choose
Attention to attention
Speed of response
Becoming our client is a straightforward process. However, before choosing Quantrills as your employment law solicitors you’ll want to be completely sure we are the right people to help you achieve your objectives. Having looked at our web site, if you like our approach and would like to discuss how we can help you, getting started is easy.
At Quantrills we are flexible in how we work with you and how we progress your case...
01473 688 100Or request a call back
By Online Form
Latest Employer Knowledge Bank Articles
Use our knowledge bank of employer focused briefing notes, checklists and case reports to obtain trusted and accurate information about key employment law and HR topics to help you learn more about your employment law rights.View more