Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2017] EWCA Civ 979

In brief

Nurmohamed, a senior Chesterton sales manager, made disclosures about manipulated management accounts that he alleged affected commission entitlements of around 100 senior managers. The Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal's finding that this was a qualifying disclosure: the "reasonable belief that the disclosure is made in the public interest" threshold under s.43B(1) ERA 1996 is a relatively low one. The disclosure need not benefit the public as a whole — a section of the public (including a group of fellow workers) can suffice, and the worker's motive may be mixed provided the belief in public interest is genuinely held and reasonable. The Court identified four factors as relevant (numbers affected, nature of the interests affected, nature of the wrongdoing, identity of the wrongdoer) but declined to formalise them as a test.

Key provisions

• §§27–37 — Public-interest test under s.43B(1) ERA 1996 — sectional interest suffices: A disclosure made in the reasonable belief that it is in the public interest is protected even where it concerns a section of the public rather than society at large. A group of fellow workers can be that "section of the public". The question is whether the worker's belief that the disclosure was in the public interest was reasonable, which is a low threshold.
• §§27–37 — Mixed motives do not defeat protection: The fact that the worker had a personal stake in the disclosure (his own commission was affected) did not prevent the public-interest test from being satisfied. The test is whether the belief in public interest is genuine and reasonable, not whether the public-interest component was the dominant motive.
• §§34–37 — Four factors guide but do not replace the public-interest analysis: Underhill LJ identified four factors relevant to whether a reasonable belief in public interest existed: (a) numbers in the group affected; (b) nature of the interests affected and the extent to which they are affected; (c) nature of the wrongdoing disclosed; (d) identity of the alleged wrongdoer. These are relevant factors, not an exhaustive test.

When relevant

Whenever a disclosure's public-interest character is challenged. Directly relevant to stacked-claim analysis where a trans inclusion concern is framed as both an EqA grievance and a PIDA disclosure. Also relevant where an organisation argues a worker's "real" motive was private, or where the disclosed wrongdoing affects a section of the workforce rather than the general public.