Batki v G4S Integrated Services UK Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Elias |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWCA Civ 105 |
| Docket Number | A2/2013/1248 & 1248(A) |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 22 January 2014 |
[2014] EWCA Civ 105
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Elias
A2/2013/1248 & 1248(A)
Mr Batki appeared in person
The Respondent was unrepresented
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal brought by Mr Batki. He was a finance director of G4S Integrated Services UK Limited, and he was employed there for over 20 years in the finance department. The respondent company is one of the companies in the G4 group. He alleged that he had suffered a detriment and was subsequently dismissed for making certain protected disclosures, that is, because he was a whistle blower.
I am not going to go into the detail of the case, which is spelt out at some length in the decision of the Employment Tribunal. Suffice it to say that there were three alleged disclosures. The first, frankly, was never, it seems to me, capable of constituting a protected disclosure, and the tribunal found that it was not one. The second, the tribunal found, was not a protected disclosure because, in substance, the appellant was only suggesting in some vague way there might be a breach of a legal obligation but it wasn't sufficiently clear or definite to constitute a protected disclosure. Again, that is a finding from the tribunal. In any event, they found certain alleged detriments said to flow from these alleged disclosures were not, as a matter of law, detriments. They directed themselves properly on that matter and that is an end of it.
The significant issue perhaps is in relation to a third disclosure, which related to an alleged manipulation of the accounts to misrepresent profits. The tribunal accepted that that was in principle a protected disclosure. It was made in good faith and it was capable of constituting an alleged breach of a legal obligation.
It was said that various detriments flowed from that and the tribunal dealt with each of them in turn and rejected that conclusion. In addition, it was said that the dismissal resulted from this. The tribunal rejected that also. The short point here is that they said that the events which caused the dismissal preceded the only relevant disclosure which the tribunal found had been established in this case, so that, as a matter of fact, although there had been a protected disclosure, there wasn't the necessary causative relationship between that disclosure and the dismissal.
In that context the tribunal did consider the question of a bonus, to which the applicant was not strictly entitled following termination because of the way in which the contract was framed. But the tribunal went on to consider whether there was a detriment nonetheless on the grounds that employers will often give departing employees a bonus in these circumstances, notwithstanding the strict contractual terms do not require it. The tribunal did not accept, in the circumstances of this case, that the he was being asked to sign a compromise agreement because he had made a relevant protected disclosure.
Mr Batki feels strongly aggrieved by these conclusions. I have explained to him, as other judges must have done in the past, that he has to establish an error of law. He took proceedings before the EAT, which were rejected at the rule 3.7 stage;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michael Howe v Motor Insurers' Bureau
...owing pursuant to these Regulations shall be recoverable as a civil debt." 8 In Wagenaar v Weekend Travel Limited [2015] 1 WLR 1968; [2014] EWCA Civ. 105 the Claimant claimed damages for personal injury against the Defendant who joined the Third Party Defendant claiming indemnity/contribu......