Mr T Nicol v World Travel and Tourism Council and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Sheldon |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 25 March 2024 |
Judgment approved by the court for handing down
Nicol v WTTC, Guevara and Gracia
© EAT 2024 Page 1 [2024] EAT 42
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EAT 42
Case No: EA-2023-000036-JOJ
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 25 March 2024
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHELDON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
TOBY NICOL
Appellant
- and –
(1) WORLD TRAVEL AND TOURISM
COUNCIL
(2) GLORIA GUEVARA
(3) EMILIO GRACIA
Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms Anna Greenley (instructed by Prettys Solicitors LLP) for the Appellant
Mr Piers Martin (instructed by Sherrards Employment Law Solicitors) for the Respondents
Hearing dates: 28-29 February 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down
Nicol v WTTC, Guevara and Gracia
Double-click to enter the short title
© EAT 2024 Page 2 [2024] EAT 42
The Honourable Mr. Justice Sheldon :
Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures – Practice and Procedure
The ET dismissed the claimant’s claims that he had been unfairly dismissed and
subject to detriment as a result of protected disclosures that he had made: sections
103A and 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On appeal, the claimant took
issue with a large number of findings made by the ET. The claimant complained that a
finding had been made on a point that was not in issue between the parties and had
already been admitted by the respondents. The claimant complained that a finding
was made on a point that was not one of the issues that the ET had to decide and had
not been put to the claimant in cross-examination. The claimant also contended that
the ET had applied an inappropriate approach to a disclosure that had been made to
person A, which was then transmitted to person B. The claimant contended that as
long as a protected disclosure had been made to A, and B knew that a disclosure had
been made, B did not need to know the detail of what had been disclosed to A.
Held: appeal allowed in part, and dismissed in part.
The ET had made an error in reaching a decision on a point that had not been argued
(namely that PD3 had not being made on or around 14 August 2019). Nevertheless,
the ET would not have reached a different conclusion even if the error had not been
made and so remittal was not required. The ET made an error in finding that the
claimant had made inappropriate sexualised comments towards another employee, as
this was not part of the case that the claimant understood that he had to meet, and he
was not cross-examined on the point. This was a standalone point and did not infect
the decision as a whole. The ET did not err in deciding that person B needed to be
aware of some of the detail of what the claimant had disclosed to person A. According
Judgment approved by the court for handing down
Nicol v WTTC, Guevara and Gracia
Double-click to enter the short title
© EAT 2024 Page 3 [2024] EAT 42
to the structure of the whistleblowing legislation, for employers to be fixed with
liability they ought to have some knowledge of what the worker is complaining or
expressing concerns about. It is not enough that person B knows that the claimant has
made a disclosure to person A.
Introduction
1. This appeal raises a series of challenges to a decision of the Employment
Tribunal (“ET”) sitting (via CVP) in London South (Employment Judge Barker,
Ms H Bharadia and Mr P Adkins) on 10-14 and 17-18 October 2022, and sent
to the parties on 14 December 2022. I refer to the parties as the claimant and
respondent, as below. The case concerned a number of disclosures of
information that the claimant contends that he made, and which he alleged were
“protected disclosures” under the statutory whistleblowing regime: these are
referred to as PD1-6. The ET found that: (i) the claimant’s claim of
automatically unfair dismissal (s103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
(“ERA”)) against the first respondent fails and is dismissed; and (ii) the
claimant’s claims of detriment on the grounds of having made protected
disclosures (section 47B of the ERA) against the first, second and third
respondents fail and are dismissed.
2. Both parties were represented by counsel before the ET: Ms Greenley for the
claimant, and Mr Martin for the respondents. The same counsel appear before
me.
To continue reading
Request your trial