header-logo header-logo

Whistleblowing protection: slow progress?

218614
Whistleblowing protection is inching forward with judicial help, writes Charles Pigott—but reform is still needed
  • Recent case law has highlighted scope for the courts to extend the definition of ‘worker’ for whistleblowing purposes by applying human rights principles.
  • However, these cases show the need for wider-reaching reform .

From the outset, it has been recognised that the legal protection for whistleblowers in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), Pt IVA should not be confined to employees and ‘limb (b)’ workers (ie, non-employee workers who have entered into a contract to perform work personally (ERA 1996, s 230(3)(b)).

ERA 1996, s 43K extends the standard ERA 1996 definition of ‘worker’ for whistleblowing purposes. Over the years, successive amendments have created a complex web of provisions, but the core elements address the position of agency workers and that of individual contractors, providing their services are part of a business rather than in a personal capacity (s 43K(1)(a) and (b)). There are also provisions protecting certain categories of work experience students,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
back-to-top-scroll