Fiona Tiplady v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Justice Rose,Lady Justice Simler,Lord Justice Underhill |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWCA Civ 2180 |
| Date | 11 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2018/2684 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[2019] EWCA Civ 2180
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Justice Underhill, Lady Justice Rose and Lady Justice Simler
An employee who alleged that she had made protected disclosures, under the "whistleblower" provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which led to her constructive dismissal, could only complain of detriment she had suffered in the field of her employment, but not of detriment in her private or personal capacity.
The Court of Appeal so stated when dismissing the appeal of the claimant, Fiona Tiplady, against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Judge Eady, QC) promulgated on November 5, 2018, on her appeal from a decision of the Leeds employment tribunal (chaired by Employment Judge Davies) in proceedings the claimant had brought against Bradford Metropolitan District Council.
Mr Simon Lewis for the council. The claimant appeared in person.
Lord Justice Underhill said that the claimant had been a senior planning officer employed by the council. She and her husband complained to the council that it had not satisfactorily dealt with their concerns about a hazardous sewer under their private property and contested a complaint that a development at their property required planning permission. The claimant was not satisfied with the treatment of her concerns and resigned from her job.
She brought unfair dismissal proceedings in the employment tribunal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and under section 103A (as inserted by section five of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998), by reason of her having made protected disclosures. She also complained under section 47B (as inserted by section two of the 1998 act) of 16 detriments over a two-year period, to which she said the council had subjected her by reason of the same disclosures.
The employment tribunal found that she had made some protected disclosures and suffered some detriments, although not all those that she claimed. It also concluded that a detriment under section 47B had to be a detriment in the field of employment and did not include a detriment in the employee's private or personal capacity. That final conclusion, although not determinative of most of the claimant's allegations, was a point of some importance and there was no direct authority covering it, so it was appropriate for the court to consider it.
It was helpful to start with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miss P Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council
...is on the ground of status. 42. Even if I am wrong in my analysis thus far, per Tiplady v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2020] IRLR 230, CA (in particular at [45], per Underhill LJ) in order for the Claimant to rely upon any less favourable treatment the latter would need t......
-
Ms Tracy Robinson v His Highness Sheikh Bin Saqr Al Qasimi
...to work. That conclusion is consistent with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Tiplady v City of Bradford Metropolitan Council [2019] EWCA Civ 2180. D 57. Secondly, in the present case, the employment tribunal did find that the claimant been subjected to a change in her working practice......
-
Mr N Hopgood v S Walsh & Sons Ltd: 3202334/2020
...to ‘detriment’ is to be applied in whistle-blowing cases as in discrimination cases (Tiplady v City of Bradford Metropolitan Council [2020] ICR 965). 17. In whistleblowing detriment claims, “s47B will be infringed if the protected disclosure materially influences (in the sense of being more......
-
Ms S Veselinovic v Curtin Communications Ltd and others: 2203475/2019
...the same approach to ‘detriment’ is to be applied in whistle-blowing cases as in discrimination cases: Tiplady v City of Bradford MDC [2019] EWCA Civ 2180, [2020] ICR 965 at paragraph 188. We have also had regard to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 and o......