This EAT decision substantially limits the ‘public interest’ test and opens the door to claimants arguing that a disclosure which, perhaps even admittedly, has been primarily motivated by personal considerations, nevertheless satisfies the public interest requirement.
Clearly, claimants will still require to show that they had the interests of a wider grouping in mind when sticking their head above the parapet. But the question now arises as to how large that wider grouping need actually be, to be considered as affecting ‘the public’. In this case, a group of 100 or so managers was held to be sufficient, but we anticipate that this will be a common line of argument for whistleblowing cases of the future.
You can read the case here: