header-logo header-logo

No whistleblowing protection for jobseekers

09 April 2025
Issue: 8112 / Categories: Legal News , Whistleblowing , Employment , Human rights
printer mail-detail
Job applicants are not protected as whistleblowers, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.

Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council [2025] EWCA Civ 379 concerned a job applicant who made allegations about a charitable trust, a trustee of which was on the council’s interviewing panel.

Currently, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) only provides whistleblowing protection to NHS job applicants. Sullivan contended this was incompatible with her human rights, among other grounds. The court dismissed her appeal.

However, Lord Justice Lewis, giving the main judgment, said he would regard applying for a job ‘as capable of being treatment on the ground of some other status’.

Anna Birtwistle, partner at Farrer & Co, representing intervener Protect, the whistleblowing charity, said: ‘The judgment is particularly important in noting that a job applicant is capable of falling under “some other status” under Article 14 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] … and it clearly outlines the purpose of whistleblowing provisions in the ERA to protect the public interest.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll