A wider public disclosure
Where a worker reasonably suspects a cover-up is likely of malpractice (such as a crime), a wider disclosure will be protected if she reasonably believes the information and any allegation in it are substantially true and the disclosure is reasonable and made in good faith.
Kate was recruited by a major training company to secure new contracts for courses funded by Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs). The courses, paid for by public funds, led to vocational qualifications to help the unemployed get back into the job market.
On a routine site visit, Kate discovered that certificates had been issued at one centre for fictitious trainees and for students who had not completed the courses. She alerted her management who commenced an investigation, which revealed large numbers of falsely claimed certificates. The company dismissed the manager of that centre. Despite this action, Kate was surprised she herself was then moved to other duties. Some weeks later, she was telephoned at home by the local TEC and asked whether anything was wrong at that centre. Kate said that there were problems but that they were being sorted out. The following day she received a letter by courier summarily dismissing her for breaching confidentiality in mentioning to the TEC that there had been problems.
Kate contacted us to discuss the options. Fearing a cover-up she decided to give a journalist copies of company documents confirming the scale and nature of the fraud and the reason for her dismissal. However when the story appeared the proven fraud was referred to simply as Kate’s allegations. Worse, the story falsely said that Kate had been dismissed because the TEC had lost trust in her. After we threatened the paper with legal action, the story was corrected - but days later. Media interest continued as more trainees came forward to corroborate the scam and as politicians demanded an investigation. The company then issued a press release, implying that Kate had been involved in the fraud.
The TEC sued the company to recover the public money paid on the false certificates. A Fraud Squad investigation led to a number of arrests before the investigation was taken over by the Serious Fraud Office. We arranged for expert libel solicitors to help and Kate brought proceedings against her former employer for the damage done to her reputation. Kate has now received a fulsome apology from her former employers, an undertaking they will not repeat the slur, damages of £25,000 and legal costs.