Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed: A Landmark Whistleblowing Case

A landmark ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) could herald changes to employment law.

The tribunal ruled in favour of a whistleblower as part of a decision to overlook the usual requirement of the EAT needing to be sure that an act of whistleblowing be in in the interest of the general public (as stipulated in the 2013 Public Interest Act). Instead the tribunal focused its decision on whether the whistleblower at the centre of the case personally believed his actions favoured public interest.

The EAT also ruled that the often ambiguous term ‘the public’ need not encompass the masses at large but can also be viewed in regards to smaller groups of people who are specifically affected by an act of whistleblowing.

Details of the case

Since 2013, UK law has stated that employees must provide sound evidence that whistleblowing claims are genuinely in the interest of public protection. The recent case of Chesterton Global vs Nurmohamed is the first to show some deviation from the 2013 ruling.

This groundbreaking case involved Mohamed Nurmohamed, a senior sales manager at the Mayfair office of Chestertons, who claimed he was unfairly dismissed from his position following his revealing information on company financial accounts being unduly rearranged for the financial benefit of shareholders. Such alteration to company accounts would result in lower commission payments for Mr Nurmohamed and one-hundred other high ranking Chesterton Global employees..

Mr Nurmohamed made three separate information disclosures to senior directors of Chesterton Global between August and October 2013. On these occasions he provided them with detailed spreadsheets and other records that validate his concern about company figures. He claimed that the business was deliberately mistaking costs in order to reduce managerial earnings.

This case is of particular interest as it can be easily argued that the successful outcome of Mr Nurmohamed’s whistleblowing will only affect the employees of Chesterton Global, rather than having an impact on the general public. However, the tribunal ruled that the one-hundred other employees affected make for a large enough number of people for this case to qualify as a public issue.

Chesterton Global makes an appeal

Chesterton Global has already appealed the ruling, claiming that public interest is not being upheld if all employees concerned are employed by the same company. The EAT dismissed this challenge and has again ruled in favour of Mr Nurmohamed.

Since the 2013 Public Interest Act came into practice, there has been widespread concern that potential whistleblowers with fair cases would be discouraged from speaking out for fear that their case would be dismissed for not having a great enough significance on the general population.

It seems the case of Chesterton Global vs Nurmohamed may have greatly challenged such a perspective.