Parkins v Sodexho

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Date2002
Year2002
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
67 cases
  • Karen Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 June 2018
    ...information disclosed, and any allegation contained in it, are substantially true. …” 3 Section 43B(1)(b) was interpreted by the EAT in Parkins v Sodexho [2002] IRLR 109 to cover a disclosure made by an employee about what he reasonably believed was a breach of his contract of employment. S......
  • Mr W G A Jasper v Moo Free Ltd: 1403106/2020
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Tribunal
    • 14 May 2021
    ...inserted into section 43B(1) of the ERA by the 2013 Act, this phrase was intended to reverse the effect of Parkins v Sodexho Ltd [2002] IRLR 109 EAT, in which it was held that a breach of legal obligation owed by an employer to an employee under their own contract could constitute a protect......
  • Queensgate Investments LLP and Others v (1) Jonathan Millet (2) The Media Lawyers Association (Intervenor)
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Appeal Tribunal
    • Invalid date
    ...129(1). What is clear is that the Tribunal must not attempt to decide the issue as if it were a final issue: Parkins v Sodexho Ltd [2002] IRLR 109 in the words of HHJ Altman at paragraph 29: D “Accordingly, it seems to us, that we must find that the Employment Tribunal erred in the question......
  • Mr Edwin Jesudason v Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 31 January 2020
    ...into force with effect from 25 June 2013. The purpose of this was to reverse the effect of the EAT decision in Parkins v Sodexo Ltd. [2002] IRLR 109, and to prevent complaints which relate purely to the claimant's own treatment, such as a breach of a claimant's contract with no wider public......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • Whistleblowing – Private Dispute Or Public Interest?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 29 April 2015
    ...in the public interest. This "public interest" test was introduced to reverse the effect of previous case law (Parkins v Sodexho Limited [2002] IRLR 109) so that a worker cannot rely on a breach of his own employment contract where there are no wider public interest An Employment Appeal Tri......
  • Government announces radical reform to UK employment laws
    • United Kingdom
    • LexBlog United Kingdom
    • 23 November 2011
    ...for any whistleblower making a disclosure about the worker’s own contract (to counter the EAT’s decision in Parkins v Sodexho Ltd [2002] IRLR 109 Create a universally portable CRB check that can be viewed by employers instantly online from early 2013 Consult on the introduction of fees for ......
  • Employment highlights - An update on protection for whistleblowing
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 20 June 2012
    ...there is no specific requirement that a qualifying disclosure must be made in the public interest (as held in Parkins v Sodexho [2002] IRLR 109), meaning that workers who blow the whistle about breaches of their own employment contract can claim breach of a legal obligation and are protecte......
  • Whistleblowing in the UK – the latest developments and a review of the law
    • United Kingdom
    • LexBlog United Kingdom
    • 8 April 2013
    ...to be in the public interest for it to be protected. The high water mark of this position was illustrated in Parkins v. Sodexho [2002] IRLR 109, where the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that disclosing a breach of any legal obligation (including a mere breach of a contract of employment), ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Outside the Equality Act
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Discrimination and the Law No. 15-4, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...Public Concern at Work (2013).32. Ibid., para. 7.Hand 217 33. Ibid., p. 26.34. Lewis (2013).35. Following Parkins v. Sodesho Limited [2002] IRLR 109, EAT; see also, for example, MillbankFinacial Services Ltd v Crawford [2014] IRLR 18, [31].36. Following the CA in Fecitt v. NHS Manchester [2......
  • Whistle-blowing and the equality dimension of victimisation in the workplace
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Discrimination and the Law No. 17-2, June 2017
    • 1 June 2017
    ...the Public Interest, and the Public Inter-est Disclosure Act 1998”, Modern Law Review 63, no. 1 (2000): 25–54.31. Parkins v. Sodexho [2002] IRLR 109.32. P. Halliday. Whistleblowing: the new ‘public interest’ test and other developments para. 26,http://www.11kbw.com/uploads/files/PHPaper.pdf......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT