Hunter Law

  • Home
  • About
    • Support Team
  • Blog
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
  • Newsletter Sign Up
You are here: Home / Blog / Motive of decision maker in whistleblowing detriment claims not relevant

June 2024

Motive of decision maker in whistleblowing detriment claims not relevant

It’s widely understood that whistleblowers are protected so that they aren’t penalised in any way for coming forward. They also have a separate right not to be dismissed for having made a protected disclosure – any such dismissal is automatically unfair. But is the motive of the decision maker relevant when looking at these cases?

Royal Mail v Jhuti – whistleblowing unfair dismissal case

The dismissing officer in this case was unaware of the whistleblowing. But someone in the background who was motivated by the whistleblowing was manipulating the situation. The Supreme Court held you could look behind the motive of the decision maker and found the employee was automatically unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing.

Williams v Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust – whistleblowing detriment case

The Claimant was a consultant. She had raised concerns about the abandonment of draft guidelines. She also criticised her colleague, Dr E, for failing to hand over at the end of a shift. An altercation occurred between the Claimant and Dr E some weeks later. The Claimant was suspended – twice. She was eventually given a written warning for providing a misleading account of the altercation. She claimed detriment on grounds of having made protected disclosures.

Her claim failed. The tribunal held that the lack of hand over was a protected disclosure. The protected disclosure did not lead to the detriments. The decision makers in her two suspensions and written warning did not know about the protected disclosure. They were focused on the altercation between the Claimant and Dr E.

The EAT agreed with the tribunal. The tribunal had been correct to hold that, in whistleblowing detriment claims, you should not look behind the motive of the decision maker. In a whistleblowing detriment case you can bring a separate claim against the individual ‘puppeteer’ in the background if there is one. In dismissal cases like Jhuti, you cannot claim against any background individual.


If you enjoyed this blog then perhaps you’d like to sign up to our monthly newsletter. We’ll keep you updated on what’s new in employment law.

The team at Hunter Law is here for you. We can handle your HR issues, finesse your policies, and keep you up-to-date on evolving legislation. Please get in touch with our legal team, we’d love to help.

Newsletter Sign Up

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Newsletter June 2024

Hunter Law

1 Tonbridge Road
Maidstone
Kent
ME16 8RL

Tel: 01622 663355
Email: info@hunterlaw.uk

Discrimination Law Association logo

Discrimination Law Association Member

Solicitors Regulation Authority logo

Solicitors Regulation Authority

SRA Verification

Pricing information and complaints procedure

Defending employment tribunals – pricing and service information

Our Complaints Procedure

Privacy Notice

Privacy Notice

Copyright © 2025 Hunter Law

Hunter Law Limited is registered in England and Wales with registered company number 10336680.
Registered office: 2nd Floor, Medway Bridge House, 1-8 Fairmeadow, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1JP.
We are also an authorised body regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (authorisation number 634003).
Our professional rules may be accessed at Code of Conduct.