Protected disclosures, detriment and individual liability, and the causation questions that decide these claims.
Racing Partnership established that a protected disclosure can provide a lawful excuse to a breach of confidence claim. Payone drew the ceiling: it does not extend to post-termination misappropriation or retention of employer documents. GQA refined the position for disclosures made in the course of obtaining legal advice. How the three decisions fit together.
A reflection on the International Employment Lawyers Association conference themes, mapping the aggressive expansion of cross-border worker protections against the UK's domestic corpus, from transnational blacklisting to the whistleblowing detriment trap.
How the 2010 Blacklisting Regulations, enacted to address construction industry blacklists, became strikers' most potent legal weapon after Morais v Ryanair [2025] EWCA Civ 19, and how they interact with the ERA 2025's incoming s.236A.
Analysis of GQA Qualifications Ltd v Clayton, where the High Court held that s.43D ERA protection extends to disclosures made to any person the worker believes is competent to provide legal advice, not just qualified lawyers.
The EAT Scotland resolves the composite liability question under s.47B(1A): an innocent decision-maker cannot be held personally liable for whistleblowing detriment on the basis of a tainted manager's motivation. Henderson v GCRM Ltd [2025] EAT 136 draws a clear boundary around Jhuti. And the IDS gloss identifies where that boundary may yet give way.
In Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd the Court of Appeal held itself bound by Timis v Osipov: an employee may claim against the employer, through s.47B(1B), for a co-worker's decision to dismiss. Free to decide, it would have held otherwise. The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 21 May 2026.
Whistleblowing (Public Interest Disclosure) · Industrial Action & Trade Unions · Restraint of Trade & Injunctions