Mr R Dennis (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing in which the tribunal considered only whether the claimant's 30 April 2019 email amounted to a qualifying protected disclosure. The judge set out the background to the Bee Lane Facebook post by Councillor Foster, the council's planning obligations, and the claimant's concern that the councillor's remarks could amount to predetermination of planning decisions.

The tribunal found that the 10:50pm email was a written disclosure of information, not merely a complaint. Read in context with the earlier email chain, it identified a concern that the council or its elected members might fail to comply with planning law and procedure. The judge held that the claimant genuinely believed this was a matter of public interest, acted in good faith, and was not motivated by political bias.

Applying section 43B and section 43C ERA 1996, and referring to Jesudason, Kilraine and Chesterton Global, the tribunal concluded that the disclosure had sufficient factual content and was made both to the employer and to persons other than the employer with relevant legal responsibility. The result was that the email qualified for protection under section 43B(1)(b), so the respondent's application to dismiss the whistleblowing complaint on that ground failed. The judgment did not determine the later detriment or unfair dismissal issues, which were left for the final hearing.