Chesterton Global Ltd (trading as Chestertons) v Nurmohamed

The public interest element in section 43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires that the worker subjectively believed the disclosure was in the public interest and that that belief was objectively reasonable. The statutory amendment introducing the words "in the public interest" was intended only to prevent purely personal contractual complaints being treated as public interest disclosures. A disclosure affecting a identifiable section of the public can satisfy the public interest requirement.

The Employment Tribunal found that a director employed by the respondent employer made disclosures about alleged manipulation of accounts. The Tribunal held those disclosures were made in the reasonable belief that they were in the interests of about 100 senior managers and thus were "in the public interest". The employer appealed to the EAT on whether the disclosures could be in the public interest and whether the tribunal should determine objectively whether they were of public interest. The EAT was asked to construe the phrase inserted by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 into section 43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The central question was the proper meaning and application of the public interest limb to whistleblowing protection.

(1) The appeal is dismissed and the Tribunal's decision is upheld (see para [41]).

(2) The public interest requirement in section 43B(1) is part of the statutory reasonable belief test. The question is whether the worker subjectively believed the disclosure was in the public interest and whether that belief was objectively reasonable (see paras [28]-[35]).

(3) The 2013 amendment adding the words "in the public interest" was intended to reverse the effect of [2002] IRLR 109 (Parkins v Sodexho Ltd) and to prevent opportunistic claims based solely on personal contractual breaches. It was not intended to remove protection for disclosures that genuinely engage wider public interest considerations (see paras [17]-[19]; [36]).

(4) A disclosure that affects an identifiable section of the public can satisfy the public interest test. The number affected is not determinative; sufficiency is fact-sensitive (see paras [147]-[151]; [25]; [37]).

(5) Applying those principles, the Tribunal did not err in finding that the claimant reasonably believed his disclosures were in the interests of about 100 senior managers and that that belief was reasonable. There is no challenge to the Tribunal's factual finding that the claimant held that belief (see paras [35]; [38]).

(6) Practical outcome: the Employment Tribunal's findings that the disclosures were qualifying and that detriments and unfair dismissal arose remain intact. The EAT dismissed the employer's appeal (see para [41]).

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed. The EAT construed the public interest limb of section 43B(1) and upheld the Employment Tribunal's finding that the claimant reasonably believed his disclosures were in the public interest (see paras [28]-[36]; [41]).
• Employment Tribunal (London Central): Found disclosures were made and were qualifying; awarded that detriments and unfair dismissal had occurred (Decision sent 4 June 2014).