Book your free initial call

    We endeavour to make an initial response to all enquiries within 24 hours but please be aware that on some occasions due to prior commitments or volume of calls we will not be able to respond in that time frame. We also operate a 48 hour return policy. This return policy means that if we have not responded with 48 hours of your initial enquiry we are unable to do so due to current workloads and we will destroy your data accordingly. This policy ensures you are not left waiting and have the certainty that your data is not compromised. In most instances however we are able to make contact within a 24 hour time frame. Please note our free initial advice service is available to clients at our total discretion and if your case is of a complex nature we may not be able to offer you a free consultation. However in these instances we will advise you what the charge would be for an initial fixed fee consultation.
  • (view our privacy statement)
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

In Parson v Airplus International Ltd the EAT decided that a disclosure would not be protected if the worker involved did not believe it was made in the public interest but instead made them only with her own self-interest in mind.

The Claimant, Ms Parsons, who was a qualified non-practising barrister had made a number of disclosures to her employer. Shortly after making the disclosures she was dismissed. Ms Parsons argued that the disclosures qualified for protection and therefore made her dismissal automatically unfair for whistleblowing.

However, both the tribunal and the EAT found that the disclosures had only been made in Ms Parsons’ own self-interest and although some disclosures can be found to be both in the worker’s self-interest and in the public interest and would, therefore be protected, these disclosures did not fit that category. The EAT did, however, acknowledge that the tribunal had erred when finding that a disclosure of information of which the employer was already aware could not qualify for protection, this is not the case. This finding would make no difference, however, to the unfair dismissal claim as the EAT accepted that the reason for dismissal was the Claimant’s conduct and not the making of disclosures and that the timing was purely coincidental.