Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In Chesterton Global Ltd & Anor v Nurmohamed & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 979 the Court of Appeal further refined the test for determining whether a protected disclosure was in the “public interest” or not.

The facts in Chesterton Global Ltd & Anor v Nurmohamed & Anor

Mr Nurmohamed worked as an estate agent at Chesterton Global Ltd, a well-known firm of estate agents, from January 2008 to his dismissal on 17 October 2013; latterly, he was employer as a Director at Chesterton’s Mayfair office.

In 2011 a new group of investors acquired a shareholding in Chesterton, which is a privatec company. Their involvement with the company led to a review of, and changes to, the existing system for payment of commission to sales staff, with the payment of commission being based on profitability rather than the previously-used metric of revenue. Mr Nurmohamed believed that this change would negatively affect the amount of commission he was paid and objected, but in February 2013 he agreed to the new system, subject to some modifications.

After the changes to the commission payment system Mr Nurmohamed monitored Chesterton’s accounts for a number of months. On 14 August 2013 he met with Patricia Farley, a director responsible for the London area, and explained a number of anomalies on the accounts which he believed showed that the profitability of the Mayfair office was being artificially suppressed in order to reduce the amount of commission payable to staff – two examples that he referred to were that a depreciation charge had been made that was higher than had been budgeted for and, further, a figure had been included for a ‘staff bonus’ that had not been paid. He made the accusation that he believed that the accounts were being manipulated “to the benefit of the shareholders”. Mr Nurmohamed repeated this allegation to Mr Verman (HR director of the company) on 24 September 2013 and again to Ms Farley on 8 October 2013.

Mr Nurmohamed was dismissed from his employment on 13 October 2013 and brought claims against Chesterton and Mr Verman in the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal, claiming that his dismissal was because he had made protected disclosures within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (i.e. that he was a whistleblower).

In its ET3 Chesterton and Mr Verman accepted liability for the unfair dismissal claim but disputed that the reason for Mr Nurmohamed’s dismissal was related to any protected disclosures.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal found in Mr Nurmohamed’s favour in respect of his claims for unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal, holding that Mr Nurmohamed had made a number of protected disclosures (including his complaints about the artificial suppression of the accounts for the Mayfair office on 14 August 2013, 24 September 2013, and 8 October 2013), that those complaints were in the public interest, that at the time of making the disclosures Mr Nurmohamed had a reasonable belief that those disclosures were in the public interest, and that the sole or principal reason for Mr Nurmohamed’s dismissal was the making of one or more of those protected disclosures. In particular, the Employment Tribunal held that the disclosure had been in the public interest because the alleged misconduct was allegedly deliberate, that the financial effect of such alleged misconduct was potentially significant (between £2 million and £3 million), and that it affected over 100 senior managers’ earnings.

The Respondents appealed against the Tribunal’s conclusions, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the disclosures were sufficient to constitute being in the “public interest”, as only 100 employees were affected (and that this group was not sufficiently large).

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the Respondents’ appeal, holding that Mr Nurmohamed’s disclosures were not only made in his own interest but that he also had in mind the interests of the 100 other senior managers who would have been affected by the allegations that the accounts had been artificially suppressed. The EAT held that the grouping of these 100 or so senior managers was sufficient in order to render a conclusion that a section of the public would be affected, particularly given the fact that Chesterton was a well-known estate agent, that the allegation was that its alleged misconduct was deliberate, and that the effect of the alleged misconduct was significant (at between £2 million and £3 million).

The Respondents again appealed, on the basis that the EAT had erred in law in its finding that the disclosure had been made in the reasonable belief that it was in the “public interest”, given that Mr Nurmohamed had been complaining about a breach of a legal obligation that was principally related to his own private interests.

The decision of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Respondents’ appeal, holding that the EAT had applied the law properly in the circumstances: it was open to the Employment Tribunal to conclude that, although Mr Nurmohamed clearly had a private interest in his disclosures to his employer, he had also had a reasonable belief that there had been a breach of a legal obligation owed by Chesterton to its senior managers; this category of persons was broad enough to constitute a section of the public, therefore rendering the disclosures in the “public interest”. The Court of Appeal also held that the nature of the employer, the significance of the alleged breach, and the nature of the wrongdoing (i.e. whether it was accidental or deliberate) were also relevant factors in determining whether a disclosure was in the public interest.

The Court of Appeal went on to suggest at paragraph 34 of its judgment a broad test that could be applied in order to determine whether a disclosure of information was in the public interest or not – the Tribunal should examine:

  1. the numbers in the group whose interests the disclosure served;
  2. the nature of the interests affected and the extent to which they are affected by the wrongdoing disclosed;
  3. the nature of the wrongdoing disclosed;
  4. the identity of the alleged wrongdoer.

Our solicitors’ comments

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “This case is particularly significant as it should lay to rest the grey area of when a disclosure is made (in the reasonable belief of a worker) in the ‘public interest’ or not if it involves a matter in which the relevant employee has a private interest – the conclusion of the Court of Appeal was that it is not a bar to a successful whistleblowing claim that the relevant employee has a private interest in any allegation that there has been a breach of a legal obligation if the requirements of the new test (laid out in this article) are met.”

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.73 Average

92 Reviews

Anonymous

Redmans Solicitors provided a professional and prompt service in dealing with my settlement agreement. They used their experience to negotiate a better deal for which I am grateful for. I highly recommend their services.

Posted 5 hours ago

Cheryl R

Very efficient and friendly lawyers. I have used Redmans twice now and Chris Hadrill has been amazing to work with. Would highly recommend Redmans.

Posted 5 hours ago

Anonymous

I found Redmans Solicitors to be extremely professional, dealing with my questions and concerns quickly and in detail. I would have no hesitation in recommending Redmans Solicitors to anyone.

Posted 7 hours ago

Anonymous

I requested Redmans services on a redundancy case. Both Chris and Rana were great, thoughtful, very professional and responded quickly. They were very clear throughout the entire process, regarding the process and my options and I couldn't feel I had better legal advice for my case. Overall excellent service and I would certainly recommend and use their services again.

Posted 3 days ago

Anonymous

Responsive, patient, thorough and personable - an excellent service.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

The team at Redmans, Chris Hadrill and Sacha Barrett were always very helpful and had expert knowledge to assist me during my employment law matter, I would not hesitate to recommend them to all!

Posted 1 week ago

Arun T

Chris was punctual, attentive and accurate. He answered my questions with clarity and avoided dubiosity. I would recommend him to anyone seeking legal advice within his remit.

Posted 1 week ago

Yulian Z

Great service

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Excellent, professional service and a speedy resolution. Many thanks

Posted 1 week ago

Taral P

Sacha and Chris were both very helpful in closing out my matter. Sacha was very clear in helping me understanding the documents I needed reviewing, providing a professional service throughout.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Really pleased with the swift and professional service from Redmans. They provided very clear advice and helped conclude my matter with the minimum of stress or delay.

Posted 1 week ago

Matthew L

Redmans were very quick to respond to my initial enquiry, and provided me with a very effective and efficient service, generating a most satisfactory outcome. I would definitely use them again if the need arose.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

First rate service. Warm and friendly whilst exceptionally efficient at the same time. I would highly recommend them.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Professional and helpful. Thorough and supportive.

Posted 1 week ago

Richard A

Excellent service, prompt replies, great advice

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Very professional services

Posted 1 week ago

Margaret

Redmans Solicitors took a lot of the worry away and were very thoughtful and meticulous in their dealings with my case , thank you very mush , great service and a great job

Posted 1 month ago

Mark B

Prompt efficient service. Hourly, and part thereof, billing got a bit stressful at times - as opposed to flat fee - made me think twice about sending an email or making a quick call when I had a query because it would have eaten up minutes from my budget. But happy with the legal service I received overall and would recommend.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill has provided a truly wonderful service and was willing to lend his support and expertise at a time when other solicitors, only wanted to discuss their fees! A clear thinking and down to earth professional, Chris can be trusted to listen carefully to your matter, cut through the fog, and advise you on the best (and most realistic) way forward, saving you time, money and heartache. It will be helpful if you first get your ducks in a row in terms of documents / evidence etc. and then contact Chris, (that’s what we did) as this will help your matter to be dealt with faster. The more organised and together you are the more successful you will be. You'll be fine with Chris, I highly recommend him. Good luck!

Posted 1 month ago

Richard v

Excellent Service

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Very happy from service received. Highly recommend

Posted 1 month ago