- Doctor not protected from whistleblowing detriment by third party supplier (News, 14 March 2016)
- Impact of the case
- Background law
- The facts and the judgment of the employment tribunal
- The judgment of the EAT
The ERA 1996 contains careful and detailed provisions setting out a limited category of workers within the NHS who are entitled to bring a claim if they have suffered a detriment on account of whistleblowing. A junior doctor who had a training contract with Health Education England and had been supplied by them to an NHS Trust employer, but whose terms of work were not substantially determined by Health Education England, was not entitled to bring a detriment claim against that organisation under section 43K(1)(a) of the ERA 1996 (in which context ‘substantially’ means ‘in large part’). A purposive interpretation of the Act did not require that protection to be extended to cover him. EAT: Day v (1) Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (2) Health Education England.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial