Interim relief in whistleblowing claims: James Hockley, Clare Brereton & Polly Rodway weigh commercial embarrassment against the open justice principle
- Millet is the first appellate authority confirming that hearings to determine applications for interim relief in whistleblowing claims should be heard in public.
- Even where a hearing should be heard in public, a party might seek a privacy order under Rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The party must meet a high evidential threshold.
- Save in the most exceptional circumstances, evidence of commercial embarrassment or reputational damage will not override the principle of open justice.
Public interest is a necessary element of any whistleblowing claim; so surely it follows that the public should have access to every substantive stage of a whistleblowing claim, whether at an interim or final hearing?
This was affirmed on 15 January 2021 by Judge Tayler sitting alone in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Queensgate Investments LLP and others v Millet and The Media Lawyers Association (Intervenor)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
