The charity Public Concern at Work has found that whistleblowers are not being adequately protected under the current legal regime.

A disclosure does not need to be in the interest of the public at large in order to satisfy the “public interest test” as set out in whistleblowing legislation, and can concern only a small group of people.

An employee who disobeyed an instruction not to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office was fairly dismissed.

The Supreme Court has held that a former equity partner of a law firm structured as a limited liability partnership was a worker and therefore eligible for protection under whistleblowing legislation. The Supreme Court found that the partner fell within the definition of worker in the Employment Rights Act 1996 as she could not market her services to anyone other than the LLP and was a key part of the business.

For an employee to bring a whistleblowing claim, they first need to show that they have made a qualifying disclosure. In simple terms this means that an employee has made an allegation to their employer which shows that malpractice has taken or will take place or an employee’s health and safety is at risk.

In Onyango v Berkeley, Mr Onyango, a solicitor, claimed that as a result of accusing his former employer of acting illegally, he was reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for forgery and subject to an investigation by the SRA.