Athelstane Aamodt & Michael Paulin consider the question of informative & uninformative whistleblowing allegations
There has been something of a frisson in the world of employment law with the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the case of Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2016] UKEAT/0260/15/JOJ (26 January 2016). The judgment of the President of the EAT, Mr Justice Langstaff, analysed what “information” means in the context of a whistleblowing case, an issue that has vexed lawyers and employment tribunals for years.
Confidence & public interest
The law of confidence and the concomitant defence of public interest has historically governed disclosures made by employees that have disclosed wrong-doing; Initial Services v Putterill [1968] 1 QB 396, [1967] 3 All ER 145 being one of Lord Denning’s classic expositions on this subject, in which the Court of Appeal held that exceptions to the implied obligation of a servant not to disclose information or documents received in confidence extended to any misconduct of such a nature that it ought in the public interest to
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
