This is a whistleblower protection case about the reason for detrimental action. The company admitted that the employee suffered detriment when his role was made redundant and his employment ended. The issue was whether the relevant statutory reason was made out.
The Full Court dismissed the appeal. It considered the construction of the Corporations Act whistleblower provisions, including whether the decision-maker needed appreciation of the legal consequences of a disclosure and whether the proscribed reason was substantial and operative. The Court held the primary judge's conclusions about the company's reasons were open on the evidence.
For businesses, this is not a reason to be relaxed about whistleblower complaints. It is a reason to be precise. If an employee has made internal disclosures and the business later restructures, disciplines or terminates them, the evidence should show the actual business reason, who made the decision, what documents were considered and how the disclosure was separated from the employment action.