Under the influence: EAT confirms whistleblowing detriment test
The claimant had a senior sales role in a financial services company. He was involved in a project to provide money transfer terminals via retail outlets. A target of setting up 10,000 terminal locations by the end of 2010 was set. The claimant said that he raised concerns early in 2010 about the accuracy of the information being disclosed to investment advisers and other outsiders about the initiative and the levels of risk to the business and that, as a result of this, he had been subjected to various detriments by his employer, including side-lining and being made the subject of investigations into alleged financial irregularities.
The tribunal dismissed complaints of unfair dismissal but found that the claimant had made a protected disclosure and had been subjected to detriment as a result.
The EAT had to decide two main issues: had the claimant made a ‘disclosure’? Did he suffer detriment as a result of that? …
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump