BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Pinnington v City & County of Swansea & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 135 (03 February 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/135.html Cite as: [2005] ICR 685, [2005] EWCA Civ 135 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report: [2005] ICR 685] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
(HHJ McMULLEN QC)
Strand London, WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE CLARKE
LORD JUSTICE WALL
____________________
BERNICE PINNINGTON | Applicant/Respondent | |
-v- | ||
(1) CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA | ||
(2) GOVERNING BODY OF YSGOL CRUG GLAS SCHOOL | Respondents/Appellants |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR P GREEN (instructed by BRIAN BARR SOLICITORS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Thursday, 3rd February 2004
"A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a protected disclosure."
I shall return later to other provisions in the part of the 1996 Act introduced by amendment, namely Part IVA. It is important to note at this stage that those provisions only came into effect on 2nd July 1999. That was the day before Mrs Pinnington was dismissed.
"I doubt whether the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success but it is an unusual case and there should be an oral hearing at which the applicant's representatives will have an opportunity to argue the main points that they wish to make."
"... I am bound to comment that it would be most regrettable if there were to be further litigation on a point which is likely to be of little practical value to either party. The costs of a full Court of Appeal hearing seem certain to exceed to a huge degree any amount which is likely to be at stake or to turn on the outcome of this argument about detriment during those two days [I pause to mention the two days in question are 2nd and 3rd July 1999]. I would strongly urge the parties to try to reach agreement on this aspect of the case, rather than letting it go to a hearing before the full court. It simply is not worth the cost."
Neuberger LJ expressed similar views in paragraph 42 of the judgment.
"186. Turning now to the question of detriment for the purposes of the Public Interest Disclosure Act considerations. On the facts the Applicant was away from her employment on 2 and 3 July 1999 and can only be said to have suffered a detriment during this short period of time because of her ill-health/suspension. As to the suspension we find that the Respondents were entitled to suspend the Applicant because of disclosures made to parents by the Applicant in circumstances whereby questions of breach of confidence did arise. Further we have concluded that ill-health was not caused by any malicious or other inappropriate actions on the part of the Respondents. An unjustified sense of grievance causing ill-health cannot amount to a detriment for the purposes of the Act. We consider that that is what the Applicant had at this relevant time namely an unjustified sense of grievance. We do not find that the Applicant suffered detriment during this brief period.
"187. In any event we consider against the whole background of matters that that period from 2 and 3 July 1999 makes any question of detriment to be de minimis."
ORDER: appeal allowed; normal order for costs; respondent to pay appellants' costs, not to include any costs which have been incurred by appellants at hearing before Keene LJ and Neuberger LJ.