Whistleblowing charity helps protect compensation

In a significant win for whistleblowers in the UK, the charity Protect successfully intervened to maintain compensation rights for emotional harm, safeguarding the legal provision known as "injury to feelings" compensation. This type of compensation, available to whistleblowers who face retaliation but don’t suffer financial losses, was at risk of being removed due to an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case. The outcome preserves a critical legal remedy for whistleblowers who experience distressing workplace mistreatment as a result of speaking out.

The EAT case, between Declan Durey and South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, posed a serious threat to the well-established “injury to feelings” award. This award, akin to those given in discrimination cases, compensates individuals for the emotional pain and suffering they endure due to acts of victimisation by employers, such as bullying, exclusion, or undue disciplinary actions. Any alteration to this provision could have had severe consequences, as “injury to feelings” compensation is often the primary form of restitution for whistleblowers who choose to stay in their roles.

Elizabeth Gardiner, Chief Executive of Protect, underscored the importance of this protection, saying, “We are pleased and relieved that in this important case, the existing case law has not been overturned. The settled position remains that Employment Tribunals can make awards for non-financial losses in detriment claims, including injury to feelings awards, following the well-known Vento approach.”

Without this compensation provision, future whistleblowers could face a more challenging path in securing justice. Retaliation for whistleblowing often results in career harm, personal distress, and workplace isolation, none of which are directly tied to financial loss. In such cases, the “injury to feelings” compensation can be a necessary and validating award for the pain endured in the name of public interest.

Gardiner emphasized that “it is vital that whistleblowers can bring claims not just for any financial losses they may suffer, but also for the consequences of the enormous damage that comes with being victimised for speaking up.”

The ruling ensures that whistleblowers continue to have recourse to meaningful compensation for emotional and psychological harm, particularly important in cases where financial compensation alone does not reflect the personal cost of whistleblowing. The preservation of this remedy also aligns whistleblower protection laws with those for discrimination, reinforcing the idea that workplace mistreatment—financial or otherwise—deserves to be addressed by the justice system.

Protect’s successful intervention was supported by legal experts Paul Jennings from Bates Wells and Betsan Criddle KC from Old Square Chambers, both of whom played instrumental roles in articulating the broader public policy implications at stake.

This outcome marks a major moment for whistleblower rights, underscoring that the law should address both economic and emotional losses in protecting those who speak out against wrongdoing.