ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the first Court of Appeal examination of the "Protected Disclosure" provisions inserted into Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The provisions aim to protect employees from unfair treatment, including victimisation and dismissal, when they reasonably and responsibly raise genuine concerns about wrongdoing in the workplace.

The case arose from employment proceedings brought by the Plaintiff, a registered nurse employed by Company A in its nursing homes business, who made disclosures regarding patient welfare and care concerns at one of Company A’s nursing homes. The Plaintiff was given a written warning and subsequently summarily dismissed by Company A’s Managing Director. The Plaintiff claimed unfair dismissal and detriment under the protected disclosure provisions.

The Employment Tribunal found in favour of the Plaintiff, concluding that the Plaintiff was subjected to detriment and unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures. Company A appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which refused to allow the appeal to proceed on the ground of no reasonable prospect of success. Company A then sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. A critical procedural issue at the heart of the appeal was whether the Employment Tribunal had erred in excluding certain evidence Company A wished to call in relation to the protected disclosure and dismissal issues.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by regarding certain evidence tendered by the employer as irrelevant and refusing to admit it.
2. Whether the Employment Tribunal correctly applied the statutory requirements for a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996 as amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
3. Whether the Employment Tribunal’s findings regarding the reasonableness of the Plaintiff’s belief and the reason for dismissal were perverse or erroneous.
4. Whether the Employment Tribunal chairman’s prior association with the Plaintiff’s union’s solicitors raised any grounds for bias affecting the fairness of the hearing.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Employment Tribunal wrongly excluded relevant evidence from Company A, including witness statements and oral testimony from several employees, which was critical to the issues of protected disclosure and the reason for dismissal.
• The Tribunal failed to properly consider whether the Plaintiff’s disclosures met the statutory criteria for protected disclosure, including issues of reasonable belief, good faith, and reasonableness of external disclosure.
• The Tribunal’s conclusion that the Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed principally for making protected disclosures was perverse and unsupported by evidence.
• The Tribunal chairman’s failure to disclose his prior association with the Plaintiff’s union’s solicitors raised concerns about impartiality and fairness of the hearing.

Respondent's Arguments

• This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged the wide discretion granted to Employment Tribunals in matters of evidence and procedure but emphasized that such discretion must be exercised in accordance with legal principles and not in a plainly wrong manner. The Court found that the Employment Tribunal had taken an erroneous approach by excluding evidence relevant to the determination of whether the Plaintiff’s disclosures were protected and the true reason for dismissal.

The Court accepted that the reason for dismissal was not the only relevant issue; the question of whether the disclosures qualified as protected disclosures involved multiple factual matters that required full consideration and cross-examination. The evidence excluded by the Tribunal was relevant to the Plaintiff’s reasonable belief, good faith, and the reasonableness of the external disclosure, as well as to the reason for dismissal.

Regarding the allegation of bias due to the chairman’s prior association with the union’s solicitors, the Court found no evidence of deliberate or conscious bias but noted that the chairman’s mistaken evidential rulings could have created an impression of partiality. However, this issue was not determinative of the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED the appeal and directed that the case be remitted to the Employment Tribunal for re-hearing by a fresh tribunal. This decision was based on the Tribunal’s erroneous exclusion of relevant evidence affecting the fairness and correctness of the original hearing.

The Court suggested that future protected disclosure cases would benefit from directions hearings to identify the issues and clarify the evidence parties intend to call, thereby reducing procedural errors. No new precedent was established beyond the correction of the evidential approach in this case. The direct effect is that the Plaintiff’s claims must be reconsidered with all relevant evidence properly admitted and tested.