header-logo header-logo

Whistleblowing: need for change

11 October 2024 / Will Burrows
Issue: 8089 / Categories: Opinion , Employment , Disclosure , Regulatory
printer mail-detail
192571
Will Burrows on why better protection is needed for those who report wrongdoing

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and its incorporation into the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides important protections for whistleblowers against detriment or dismissal. If the disclosure is in the public interest and meets the requirements, the employee is protected by law, and is able to claim unlimited compensation in an employment tribunal if they are dismissed.

The major challenges whistleblowing clients face usually come only after they have tried to do the right thing by raising serious concerns to their employer. Whistleblowers often have a regulatory duty to raise concerns but then find themselves subjected to retaliation for doing so. They often end up losing their career, and then the only path to justice is via the employment tribunal system.

Pressure on the system means large cases may take up to three years to conclude. During this time, the client may be unable to earn an income. Some end up losing their homes, having to move

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll