1/ The headline in the CA judgment in Jesudason v Alder Hey is that calling a whistleblower a troublemaker or liar for the sole purpose of protecting the organisation amounts to a detriment, but the judgment contains a whole lot more of interest. bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/… #ukemplaw
2/ 1st, Sir Patrick Elias takes the opportunity at paras 16-31 to provide a useful textbook chapter on key whistleblowing principles. Of greatest use/relevance to the appeal that includes a summary of s.43G, distilling the threshold to 4 requirements: 
3/ 2ndly, at para 28 a succinct restatement of the test for what amounts to a detriment, noting that it has both subjective and objective (reasonableness) aspects to it.
4/ 3rdly, s.43G can't be used to gain protection for a whole host of unreasonable disclosures just because within them there is one which is reasonable. Such an approach to disclosure may taint them all as unreasonable even though one disclosed alone would've been reasonable.
5/ Unsurprisingly, the CA held that the inaccurate suggestion that a whistleblower's disclosures were without foundation and assertion that he weakened genuine whistleblowing could amount to a detriment.
6/ In overturning the ET & EAT & finding the statements amounted to a detriment, the CA made clear the purpose or motive in making a detrimental statement bears no relevance to whether that statement amounts to a detriment. Purpose is central to the causative analysis instead.
7/ When thus looking at the causation question in a victimisation case, motive is in issue. An employer is entitled to rebut robustly allegations made as part of a protected disclosure. Even a misleading response may not be because of the protected disclosure.
8/ Where the purpose of the Trust's statement was to nullify damaging and (partly) misleading info the claimant chose to put into the public domain, it was not an error of law for the ET to find the causation element of the victimisation test was not met.
9/ This provides a useful contribution to the case law on EqA victimisation by statements defending a position in litigation. Employers ought still to take real care before putting out statements in these circumstances & should first look carefully at their motive in doing so.
10/ The end of the CA's judgment deals with race discrimination. In looking at the burden of proof, the CA adds useful commentary to dicta on care to be taken before institutional prejudice can shift the burden - see Efobi & Manchester Police v Bailey.
11/ Finally, a (fairly obvious) practical word of warning to those acting for claimants in discrimination claims. Make sure to cross-examine on allegations of discrimination rather than just relying on the documents, lest any finding in your favour being in error. #ukemplaw
