Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

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

In the case of Mr Ibrahim v HCA International Ltd [UKEAT/0105/18/BA], Mr Ibrahim lost his appeal at the Employment Appeal Tribunal because there was no ‘public interest’ element to his whistleblowing claim. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal did find that the ‘legal obligations’ referred to in the whistleblowing legislation could include tortious and statutory duties.

The facts in Ibrahim v HCA International Ltd

The Claimant was an interpreter for HCA International Limited (“HCA”) at a private hospital.  In 2016 rumours were circulating amongst patients that the Claimant was responsible for breaches of patient confidentiality.  The Claimant asked for the rumours to be investigated in order for him to clear his name of any wrong-doing. The rumours were investigated and HCA rejected his complaint.  When he was later dismissed, he brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal for suffering a detriment for having made a protected disclosure (also known as ‘whistleblowing’) under s. 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the ‘ERA Act’).

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s whistleblowing claim on two grounds. Firstly, they held that a complaint that false rumours had been spread was not a disclosure of information showing a breach of a legal obligation as required by s.43B(1)(b) of the ERA Act. Secondly, they held that the Claimant’s complaint had not been made ‘in the public interest’ (as required by s.43(B)(1) of the ERA Act).  To satisfy the test contained in s.43(B)(1), an Employment Tribunal has to ask itself whether the worker believed that the disclosure they were making was in the public interest, and whether, if so, that belief was reasonable.  The Employment Tribunal held the Claimant’s disclosure had been made with a view to clearing his name and re-establishing his reputation, not in the public interest. Mr Ibrahim appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The EAT held that the Employment Tribunal had erred in finding that the subject matter of the Claimant’s complaint did not come within s.43B(1)(b) (which refers to a breach of a ‘legal obligation’).  The EAT stated that a breach of a legal obligation could include tortious duties, such as defamation, and breaches of statutory duty, such as those contained in the Defamation Act 2013. The Claimant’s complaint was essentially that he was being defamed and, thus, the Employment Tribunal should have found that S.43B(1)(b) was satisfied.

However, they went on to dismiss the Claimant’s second ground of appeal and instead upheld the Employment Tribunal’s conclusion that the Claimant did not believe his complaint raised a public interest issue for the purpose of S.43(B)(1), and so it was not protected.  This conclusion was based on a finding of fact that the Claimant did not have a subjective belief in the public interest element of his disclosure.  The Claimant’s appeal was therefore dismissed.

Our solicitors’ views on the case of Ibrahim v HCA International Ltd

Sacha Barrett, a Senior Associate in the employment department at Redmans, made the following comment on the case: “This case demonstrates that the requirement that a disclosure is made ‘in the public interest’ is fundamental to the success of any whistleblowing claim.  Whether a disclosure was made ‘in the public interest’ is for a tribunal to decide having considered the facts of the case, but this case makes it clear that the disclosure must be concerned with more than just a breach of an individual worker’s contract of employment for it to be covered by whistleblowing legislation.” 

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Ibrahim v HCA International Ltd UKEAT/0105/18/BA can be found here.

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 first name (required)

Your last name (required)

Your email (required)

Your telephone number (required)

Brief details of your enquiry

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

4.75 Average

195 Reviews

Alkhas K

Excellent service.

Posted 5 days ago

Mathias G

Contacted them regarding my end of employment agreement. Chris Hadrill dealt with it and was done and handed back to employer same day more than happy with there service.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Mark W

Most professional from start to finish offering very a personal service. Most impressive and quick when dealing with the matters in hand.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Posted 1 month ago

submit

I am very glad I came across Redmans Solicitors. Fantastic service!

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Fantastic communication, always happy to answer queries, highly recommended.

Posted 1 month ago

Wavenie B

They were very straight to the point, friendly and understanding people. I felt they had my best interest. They were easy to get hold of, replies were almost instant. 5/5 for customer service

Posted 1 month ago

Christina P

Caroline was fantastic to work with - extremely knowledgeable, supportive, thorough and honest. I definitely recommend Redmans!

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Very well done and fast support. Professional and reliable. Highly recommended!

Posted 1 month ago

Helene L

They were very knowledgable in the respected area in terms of change in law/regulations that is crucial for the clients who are seeking for legal arvice.

Posted 1 month ago

Sara R

Very helpful and wonderful advice

Posted 1 month ago

Marie D

very good service all digitalised

Posted 1 month ago

Philip H

Chris Hadrill handled my case with great accuracy and efficiency. Basically made it feel like a process without hassle. Doesn't try to expand the case just for greater fees. I value his professional advice highly.

Posted 1 month ago

Michael W

Professional, responsive and supportive - excellent service!

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I was really happy with the service provided. I had to chase a couple of time but despite that, my matter was dealt with in a timely manor. I would use again in the future

Posted 1 month ago

Lee M

Superb service and always available

Posted 2 months ago

Jonathan S

I was very grateful for the support I received from Redmans during a very difficult period. Rana Tandon really got under the skin of my issue and understood what was important to me, steering me carefully and sensibly to an outcome I was very happy with. I would recommend Redmans to anyone else without any reservations whatsoever.

Posted 2 months ago

Mohamed A

Super helpful and efficient, trustworthy service

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

efficient, responsive and effective

Posted 2 months ago

Andrew B

Very good service

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent service, compassionate and a good outcome

Posted 2 months ago