Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] EWCA Civ 174

In brief

Dr Babula made a disclosure about a colleague he believed had expressed sympathy for an act of terrorism. The allegation turned out to be mistaken. The Court of Appeal (Wall LJ giving the leading judgment) held that the s.43B(1) reasonable-belief standard is subjective in the sense that it turns on the worker's actual belief, but the reasonableness of that belief is judged objectively in light of the information available to the worker at the time. A disclosure is protected where the worker reasonably believed the information tended to show a relevant failure, even if subsequent investigation shows the belief was wrong. Protection does not require the underlying allegation to be correct.

Key provisions

• §§76–82 — Reasonable-belief standard — subjective belief, objective reasonableness: Under s.43B(1) the worker must actually believe the information tends to show a relevant failure; the reasonableness of that belief is assessed objectively on the material available to the worker at the time. A disclosure can be protected even where the underlying factual allegation later proves mistaken.
• §§76–82 — Mistake of fact does not remove PIDA protection: A mistaken disclosure can still be a qualifying disclosure provided the worker reasonably believed at the time that the information tended to show a relevant failure. The focus is on the quality of the belief, not the accuracy of the underlying allegation.

When relevant

Defending the reasonable-belief character of a disclosure that turned out to be mistaken. Always relevant where an organisation argues that a disclosure should not be protected because it was "wrong" — Babula confirms that correctness is not the test, reasonableness of belief is.