This Practice Note discusses the defences and exceptions that are available in relation to a whistleblowing claim. Those wholly or partly excluded from bringing a claim Although coverage of the whistleblowing provisions is very broad, a small selection of individuals are partly or wholly excluded from the right to bring a claim. For further details, see Practice Note: Entitlement to claim whistleblowing—Those excluded from bringing some types of claim. Lack of reasonable belief in wrongdoing For a disclosure to be a qualifying disclosure, the worker making it must reasonably believe that what they are alleging tends to show that one or more of the listed types of wrongdoing has occurred. It will not be a qualifying disclosure if it can be shown that, given the information available to the worker at the time the decision to disclose was made, it was not reasonable for them to believe that it tended to show the relevant wrongdoing. For further information on this issue, see Practice Note: Whistleblowing—protected disclosures—Necessary belief in the relevant wrongdoing. Lack of reasonable

Employment analysis: The EAT’s earlier decision in Malik v Centros Securities (that in a public interest detriment claim under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 it is not permissible to import the knowledge and motivation of another to the decision maker) is not changed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Mail Group v Jhuti, according to the EAT.

In a whistleblowing detriment claim a distinction can be drawn between the making of a protected disclosure and the factors or consequences that follow, eg the employer's required action to deal with the information that has been disclosed. This is because the fact of making a protected disclosure can be separated from the continuum of conduct that follows. Tribunals should, however, be astute to ensure that the factors relied on by an employer to explain its actions are genuinely separable from the fact of the worker making the protected disclosure and are the real reasons why the employer acted as it did. Although the EAT in Woodhouse suggested that it would be only in an exceptional case that a detriment or dismissal would not be found to be done by reason of the protected act it seems that there is no additional requirement that the case be exceptional. EAT: Shinwari v Vue Entertainment.

Law360, London: Failing to heed whistleblowers contributed to three major scandals that cost the UK government over £426m, a whistleblowing charity said in a report on 4 February 2025 as it demanded urgent reforms.

Corporate Crime analysis: Rahman Ravelli’s legal director, Dr. Angelika Hellweger and associate, Tatiana Novikova outline the UK’s approach to whistleblowing. They detail current UK legislation and other measures relating to whistleblowing, and the extent of the protection these provide, comparing this with what is available to whistleblowers in the United States. The scheme for rewarding whistleblowers that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) announced towards the end of 2025 is also explained and compared with the US protections for whistleblowers. They conclude their analysis by setting out what further reforms are required for the UK to cultivate a robust whistleblowing culture and to fully realise the benefits such a framework can deliver.

This Practice Note considers the remedies that are available for whistleblowing unfair dismissal claims and for claims of whistleblowing detriment. Whistleblowing unfair dismissal claims An employee claiming unfair dismissal on the ground of whistleblowing can apply for interim relief. For further guidance on the legal and practical issues to consider in relation to interim relief, see Practice Note: Interim relief in unfair dismissal. Where an employee succeeds in a claim for unfair dismissal in which the tribunal accepts that the principal reason the employee was dismissed was because they made a protected disclosure, they will (with one exceptional feature—see below) be entitled to remedies according to all the usual principles which apply in any unfair dismissal claim, namely: • reinstatement or re-engagement • a basic award • a compensatory award For further information in relation to these remedies generally, see Practice Note: Unfair dismissal remedies—general. Where making a protected disclosure is the reason or principal reason for an employee's dismissal, the dismissal will be automatically unfair (see Practice Note: Automatically unfair reasons). A key exceptional feature of remedies

All organisations face the risk of things going wrong or of unknowingly harbouring malpractice. We take malpractice very seriously and are committed to conducting our business with honesty and integrity and we expect all staff to maintain high standards too. We encourage open communication from all those who work for us and we want everyone to feel secure about raising concerns. All staff have protection under whistleblowing laws if they raise concerns in the correct way. This form is designed to give staff that opportunity and protection. It does not matter if an individual who raises a concern is mistaken about it—staff do not have to prove anything about the allegation they are making but they must reasonably believe that the disclosure

This Precedent is a tool to maintain records of reports made under the Whistleblowing policy. It is provided in Excel format and therefore cannot be downloaded to Word. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA 1998) protects workers who make 'protected disclosures' from dismissal, selection for redundancy or from being subject to a detriment, such

Employment news analysis: Section 47B(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) does not bar an employee from bringing a whistleblowing detriment claim against their employer based on a co-worker's act of dismissal, and therefore an employee who brings an unfair dismissal claim under ERA 1996, s 103A can also bring a detriment claim based on dismissal, on the basis of vicarious liability, against their employer under ERA 1996, s 47B(1B), according to the Court of Appeal. However, this decision was reached on the basis that the Court reluctantly found itself bound by precedent by its previous decision in Timis v Osipov, with which it respectfully disagreed.

Employment analysis: Only workers are entitled to bring claims in respect of whistleblowing when they have suffered detriment and/or dismissal because of making a protected disclosure. Job applicants do not have the same protection, unless they fall within the provisions for applicants for positions with certain specified NHS employers, according to the EAT.

Employment Rights Act 1996 and Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 Under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), as amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA 1998) and as further amended by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2016, any agreement between employees and their employer is void in so far as it purports to prevent the employee from making a protected disclosure. A disclosure qualifies as protected if it is a disclosure of information: • which the worker reasonably believes is made in the public interest and tends to show one or more of certain types of wrongdoing including criminal offences, failing to comply with legal obligations, miscarriages of justice, endangerment of health or safety, damage to the environment, or deliberate concealment of any of these things (a 'qualifying disclosure'), and • made in one of the protected manners e.g, to the worker's employer (or in some circumstances to another individual responsible for the wrongdoing), or made in the course of obtaining legal advice, or in certain circumstances made to a Minister of the Crown, relevant

1 General information Date of review [Insert date] Person conducting review [Insert name] 2 Data Criteria Over the last 12 months Number of whistleblowing reports received [Insert number] 3 Review and findings Review factor Response Are your Whistleblowing policy and processes up to date and fit for purpose? □ Yes□