Whistleblowers’ Act must be interpreted purposively

In BP plc v (1) Elstone (2) Petrotechnics Ltd [EAT/0141/09], Petrotechnics Ltd (PL) managed its client’s health and safety operations. BP plc was one of its clients. Mr Elstone, a PL worker, made a series of protected disclosures (or “blown the whistle”) to BP plc about his health and safety concerns.

PL considered the disclosures to be confidential and dismissed Mr Elstone for gross misconduct.

After his dismissal, BP plc employed Mr Elstone as a consultant. However, BP plc did not offer any more consultancy work to Mr Elstone after it discovered the reason for his dismissal.

Mr Elstone claimed that BP plc had subjected him to a detriment because he had made a protected disclosure (or “blown the whistle”).

EAT’s Decision

The EAT held that under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (also known as the Whistleblowers’ Act) - Mr Elstone was permitted to make such a claim – even though he was employed by PL and not BP plc at the time he had made the protected disclosure (or “blown the whistle”).

The Act had to be interpreted purposively in order to provide proper protection for a whistleblower.