header-logo header-logo

04 December 2013
Issue: 7587 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

A whistleblowers’ code

Charity calls for a new code of practice on whistleblowing

Current legislation on whistleblowing is not working and a new code of practice should be adopted in all UK workplaces, a major report has concluded.

Employment tribunal panel members should also be given specialist training on whistleblowers, and courts and tribunals should be able to take non-compliance with the code into account when considering cases.

The report, published last week by the Whistleblowing Commission, which was set up in February by the charity Public Concern at Work to make recommendations for change, notes that less than half of UK employees are aware of a whistleblowing policy at their workplace.

Its proposed code, published with its report, sets out standards for organisations and businesses, and includes guidance for employers, their workers and representatives on how to deal with any whistleblowing issue. Failure to listen and act contributed to the poor standards of care at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, the report says, while whistleblowers were ignored on LIBOR rigging and the Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal.

It recommends that the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) be strengthened and extended to cover a broader range of workers including doctors, social workers, foster carers and volunteers. It calls on regulatory bodies to be transparent about their own whistleblowing arrangements, and to “require or encourage” the adoption of the code by those they regulate, and calls for specific provisions against the blacklisting of whistleblowers.

In research by Public Concern at Work among 1,000 whistleblowers, three-quarters said nothing was done and 60% received no response.

Issue: 7587 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll