Seeking protection for NHS whistleblowers who go to the media as a last resort
The 2012 High Court case vs Alder Hey
High Court claims may be lucrative for British Medical Association (BMA) lawyers, but their deals are poor value for safety and the public purse. Cross-examination may force whistleblowers to out themselves as sources, although a journalist would be protected for refusing. More info
The 2016 Employment Tribunal (ET) vs Alder Hey
NHS Trusts can’t go after journalists for their sources. However, they can go after likely whistleblowers; pushing them to seek protection from the Employment Tribunal; and force them to out themselves as sources, on cross-examination. More info
The 2016 High Court case vs the BMA
The British Medical Association (BMA) has hit on a new way to get around the protection of journalists’ sources: sue their whistleblowers for breach of contract or misrepresentation if they dare not admit to being a journalist’s source when challenged. More info
The 2018 Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) vs Alder Hey
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) really restricts scrutiny to points of law, so the Employment Tribunal (ET) retains tremendous power. It can render opinion as fact, and vice versa, leaving whistleblowers with few options. The hearing is not recorded, so it’s a struggle for whistleblowers if the ET misses key evidence. More info
The 2019 Court of Appeal case vs Alder Hey
The Court of Appeal has ruled that Alder Hey bosses committed detriments in law by repeatedly lying about my safety concerns, but it’s then set a dangerous precedent by excusing that as reputation management. More info
You can also read a Q&A on this here.
Jesudason Appeal 