Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Employment lawHR practiceEmployment tribunalsWhistleblowing

BP Plc v Elstone (1) and Petrotechnics (2), EAT

by Personnel Today 11 May 2010
by Personnel Today 11 May 2010

This is a case from the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to whistleblowing. The employee in this case had a long career with BP but moved to Petrotechnics in 2006.

His job at Petrotechnics involved evaluating safety processes for clients, including BP. While at Petrotechnics, he made a protected disclosure about safety processes to BP managers. Petrotechnics found out about this and dismissed the employee for disclosing confidential information to BP.

The employee then began working as a consultant at BP, but was not offered further consultancy agreements after the first agreement, because BP became aware that he had been dismissed from Petrotechnics for disclosing confidential information.

Detriment

The employee brought a claim against BP because it had subjected him to a detriment due to his making a protected disclosure to BP while employed by a different employer (Petrotechnics). He argued it did not matter that he was not an employee of BP at the time that he made the disclosure.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) agreed. It stated that while an individual must be an employee or a worker at the time when they make the protected disclosure, they need not be a worker or employee of the same employer that subjects them to the detriment.

The EAT considered the purpose of the whistleblowing legislation and found the central issue was the protection of workers rather than the identity of employers. Therefore a worker’s protection should not be lost simply because they have changed employers.

Key points



  • Protected disclosures do not need to be made to current employers, be about the current employer or be made at any particular time. But at the time when the disclosure is made, the individual must be an employee or worker.

  • The EAT stated that it is unlikely that employers would be caught out by employees having made disclosures while in previous employment that the new employer did not know about, as it would be difficult to prove causation in those cases – in other words, that the detriment was caused by the protected disclosure.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

What you should do



  • If you become aware that an employee or worker has made a protected disclosure before coming into your employment, you should not subject them to a detriment or dismiss them for this reason.

by Richard Ryan, associate, Helen Ward, associate, and Tori O’Neill, trainee solicitor, Addleshaw Goddard

Personnel Today

previous post
Regional view: Liverpool
next post
Hung parliament and economic uncertainty stall employer expansion plans

You may also like

Decision to sack man for Michael Jackson noises...

29 Aug 2025

P&O Ferries boss who steered 800 sackings steps...

29 Aug 2025

Cabin crew manager with ‘flirty banter’ loses discrimination...

29 Aug 2025

Council clerk sacked after trying to ensure his...

29 Aug 2025

Day one rights in the Employment Rights Bill...

28 Aug 2025

EHRC acts on policies flouting law on single-sex...

28 Aug 2025

MoD worker loses harassment claim over lack of...

27 Aug 2025

Acas to explore use of AI as half...

27 Aug 2025

Café worker awarded £22k after being too cold...

26 Aug 2025

Royal Mail eCourier drivers bring legal claim over...

26 Aug 2025

  • Work smart – stay well: Avoid unnecessary pain with centred ergonomics SPONSORED | If you often notice...Read more
  • Elevate your L&D strategy at the World of Learning 2025 SPONSORED | This October...Read more
  • How to employ a global workforce from the UK (webinar) WEBINAR | With an unpredictable...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise