Ireland: Employee’s Reasonable Relief Reaffirmed the Fundamental Principle of Protected Disclosure Protection
In the recent decision of Breban v Catch Security Systems Limited [2025] IEHC 366, the Irish High Court confirmed that actual wrongdoing is not required to be established in cases brought under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (the “Act”), and that an employee’s reasonable relief as to wrongdoing will be sufficient.
Background
The appellant was employed as a security systems engineer from September 2023. On 8 May 2024, he sent an email to his employer raising fire safety concerns about a client’s premises. He was dismissed on 5 July 2024 during his probationary period. The employer claimed the dismissal was due to customer complaints and unrelated to the disclosure.
Analysis and Outcome
The High Court considered whether the appellant was entitled to interim relief pending determination of his claim by the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”). The test for interim relief is whether there are likely substantial grounds for contending that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly to making a protected disclosure.
The Court examined three key issues:
- Whether the email sent by the employee constituted a protected disclosure
- The application of the section 5(5) exception, which excludes disclosures from protection where it is the specific function of the worker to detect or prosecute the wrongdoing disclosed, unless the disclosure involves a new act or omission by the employer
- The causal link between the disclosure and the dismissal
The High Court found that the email likely constituted a protected disclosure. It held that the section 5(5) exception should be narrowly construed and was unlikely to apply in this case. The timing of the customer complaints and dismissal shortly after the disclosure suggested a causal link, the High Court found.
The High Court noted that the factual matters of the case regarding actual wrongdoing contained in the employee’s email were for the determination of the WRC. The Court was only required to determine if there was a “reasonable belief” held by the appellant that the information tended to show relevant wrongdoing.
The High Court allowed the appeal and held that there were substantial grounds for contending that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from the protected disclosure.
Practical Guidance for Employers
This decision confirms that wrongdoing which is the subject of a disclosure does not necessarily have to have occurred in order for it to be considered a protected disclosure under the Act. Instead, the employee need only reasonably believe their disclosure contained relevant information which would show wrongdoing.
The High Court also emphasised that section 5(5) of the Act should be limited in terms of circumstances where employers can rely on this defence. While detection and reporting may fall within an employee’s remit, it will likely not amount to an exemption under the Act unless it is a “an official role” dedicated to this purpose.
