Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
  • OHW+

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

Government publishes ‘roadmap’ for Employment Rights Bill

1 Jul 2025

Employers’ duty of care: keeping workers safe in...

27 Jun 2025

When will the Employment Rights Bill become law?

26 Jun 2025

HR manager with ‘messy’ work loses discrimination case

25 Jun 2025

With HR absence rising, is your people team...

24 Jun 2025

Man who used company credit card for himself...

23 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

AI company did not racially discriminate against Chinese...

20 Jun 2025

Barts nurse told to remove watermelon image claims...

19 Jun 2025

WFH employee who falsified timesheets loses unfair dismissal...

16 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...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
OHW+
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
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
  • OHW+