The Court confirmed that only the worker’s reasonable belief that information tended to show relevant wrongdoing is required; actual wrongdoing need not be established.

The Appellant was employed as a security systems engineer when he sent an email to his employer in May raising fire safety concerns about a client's premises. He was dismissed in July during his probationary period.

The Respondent’s position was the termination was unconnected with any concerns raised by the Appellant but rather arose because it had received multiple complaints regarding the Appellant’s performance and interactions with customers.

The Appellant brought an application for interim relief before the Circuit Court seeking continuation of his contract of employment, arguing his email was a protected disclosure and was wholly or mainly the reason for his dismissal. The application for interim relief was brought before he lodged his substantive unfair dismissal complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (2014 Act) with WRC.

The Circuit Court refused the Appellant’s application for interim relief. The Appellant appealed this decision to the High Court.

The Respondent submitted that there had been no relevant wrongdoing, therefore there was no protected disclosure.

The Court held that it would refuse the Appellant’s application for interim relief on the basis that it brought in advance of any WRC complaint, as such this procedural requirement must be met in advance before seeking such reliefs before the Circuit Court.

The Court confirmed all that is required is “the reasonable belief of the worker” that the information tended to show relevant wrongdoing and there is no requirement to establish a relevant wrongdoing.

On the issue of whether the dismissal stemmed wholly or mainly from the protected disclosure, the Court confirmed this was a matter for determination by the WRC, however, for the purpose of the interim relief application, the Court held that the proximity of time between the making of the protected disclosure and the dismissal is a useful consideration.

The High Court concluded the Appellant had sufficiently established that his dismissal arose wholly or mainly as a result of his disclosure, therefore he met the requirements for interim relief, and the appeal was allowed.

This decision confirms that wrongdoing need not have actually occurred so long as the employee reasonably believed it to have.

The Court emphasised section 5(5) of the 2014 Act should be narrowly construed and be limited in terms of circumstances whereby employers can reply on this defence, as while detection and reporting may fall within an employee’s remit this will not act as a means for an employer to defend themselves at interim relief stage or before the WRC.

The full case can be found here.