The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling in Ibrahim v HCA International Limited confirms that disclosures made by a worker must have a connection to the wider public interest in order to qualify for whistleblower protection.
In March 2016 Mr Ibrahim found out that he was the subject of rumours circulating the hospital in which he worked. The rumours concerned breaches of patient confidentiality and so he raised a complaint and asked a senior colleague to investigate the ‘false rumours’. Both at the time he made the complaint and during a subsequent investigation, Mr Ibrahim maintained that his motivation was to ‘clear his name’ and ‘restore his reputation’. Mr Ibrahim was dismissed following the investigation and he brought a tribunal claim. He argued that his complaint amounted to a qualifying disclosure under the whistleblowing legislation because he had been defamed by false rumours, and this suggested that there had been a breach of a legal obligation. Only at this stage did he claim that he was concerned about patient confidentiality and the protection of personal data, which are matters that fall within the public interest.
The EAT dismissed Mr Ibrahim’s appeal after he lost at employment tribunal. Although Mr Ibrahim was correct to point out that his initial motivation to ‘clear his name’ does not preclude a belief in the public interest element, there was no evidence to suggest that he believed the disclosure was in the public interest at the time that it was made. His motivation for raising the complaint was persuasive, and the initial employment tribunal was entitled to find that he did not believe the disclosure was in the public interest.
The case highlights the importance of an employee evidencing, at an early stage, the connection between a disclosure and the wider public interest. It is not sufficient to complain about a wrong done to them alone.
