1.0Blogshttps://www.tayloremmet.co.uk/blogsWhistleblowing and the public interest: an update | Blogsrich600338<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="NKNaa9AXiF"><a href="https://www.tayloremmet.co.uk/blogs/whistleblowing-public-interest-update/">Whistleblowing and the public interest: an update</a></blockquote><iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://www.tayloremmet.co.uk/blogs/whistleblowing-public-interest-update/embed/#?secret=NKNaa9AXiF" width="600" height="338" title="“Whistleblowing and the public interest: an update” — Blogs" data-secret="NKNaa9AXiF" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"></iframe><script>
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
//# sourceURL=https://www.tayloremmet.co.uk/blogs/wp-includes/js/wp-embed.min.js
</script>
You may recall the case of Chesterton which we discussed in our last blog about whistleblowing. In Chesterton the EAT considered the meaning of the “public interest” test. This test was inserted into the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (the Act) in the hopes it would prevent employees making allegations about breaches of their own contract of employment, often in order to negotiate a higher severance package for themselves. The EAT held that it was not necessary to show that a disclosure was of interest to the public as a whole, as it is inevitable that only a section of the public would be directly affected by any given disclosure. Following on from Chesterton, a further decision from the EAT has been made on the interpretation of the public interest test.