And speaking of deep thinking brings me to the challengingly complex case of Jackson v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police 2026, and the veracity of some protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996. Strap in and remember… it won’t kill you and it WILL make you stronger.

Mr Jackson joined Greater Manchester Police in 1986 and had risen to Detective Chief Inspector by 2007. Despite periods of acting at Superintendent level, he was not permanently promoted to Superintendent, and in 2012 he raised grievances concerning promotion processes. He alleged a culture of cronyism and cover-ups within GMP. He also brought, and later withdrew, an Employment Tribunal claim for sex discrimination during 2012–2013.

In January 2014, Mr Jackson met with the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which was prescribed for whistleblowing purposes, and subsequently submitted three Protected Disclosure Reports (PDR). These raised concerns including alleged operational failings, criminal misconduct and systemic cronyism at senior levels. He also raised questions about Operation Nixon and the investigations into the activities of Dale Cregan.

Mr Jackson relied on 19 alleged protected disclosures and claimed that he had suffered 22 detriments from March 2014 onwards. He subsequently went off sick with work-related stress in April 2016 and pursued further grievances and mediation. In November 2016, he gave notice of his retirement, which took effect from January 2017. He claimed that he had been constructively and automatically unfairly dismissed because of his whistleblowing.

Mr Jackson then filed claims for constructive dismissal and whistleblowing detriments in the Employment Tribunal. The ET found that none of Mr Jackson’s 19 alleged disclosures amounted to protected disclosures. It also rejected his constructive dismissal claim.

The ET considered the information disclosed in the PDRs in context and in the round, rather than limiting its assessment to the extracts identified in the agreed List of Issues. It concluded that Mr Jackson did not have a reasonable belief in the substantial truth of key allegations when making the disclosures to the IPCC under section 43F ERA 1996.

It also found that the constructive dismissal claim failed for a number of reasons, including that there had been no repudiatory breach or effective “last straw”, that Mr Jackson had affirmed the contract, and that his retirement was not in response to any breach by GMP.

Mr Jackson then appealed the decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, pursuing six of the 19 alleged disclosures and challenging the ET's conclusions on constructive dismissal.

The EAT dismissed the appeal on all grounds. It confirmed that the ET was entitled to consider closely related material within the PDRs when deciding what information had actually been disclosed. It was not restricted to the selective extracts included in the List of Issues, and there was no procedural unfairness in considering the wider context.

The EAT also upheld the ET's approach to section 43F of the ERA 1996. A worker must reasonably believe that the information disclosed, including any allegations contained within it, is substantially true. This requires a qualitative assessment rather than a particular percentage threshold. The ET had therefore not incorrectly applied the test; it made a qualitative evaluation, looking at the meaning and effect of the disclosures in their proper context.

The EAT also agreed that Mr Jackson's delay and his use of the grievance process could be relevant when assessing whether his statutory beliefs were genuinely and reasonably held, including his belief that the disclosure was made in the public interest. The ET's findings on credibility and its assessment of the evidence were not perverse.

A late attempt by Mr Jackson to introduce a new argument about the construction of section 43F was also rejected. The point had not been argued before the ET, the application was out of time and, in any event, the argument had no merit.

The constructive dismissal grounds did not ultimately affect the outcome because there had been no protected disclosure. However, the EAT also found no error of law in the ET's conclusions on the alleged last straw, affirmation or causation.

This case is important because it shows that ETs will look at the information actually disclosed and the surrounding context, rather than necessarily being limited to carefully selected extracts from a whistleblowing report.

For employers, this reinforces the importance of taking whistleblowing concerns seriously and keeping a clear record of how they are considered and responded to. Where an employee raises wide-ranging allegations, employers should be able to distinguish between genuine concerns requiring investigation and allegations which may not be supported by the available evidence.

It is also a reminder that an employee's conduct and the way in which they pursue their concerns can form part of the wider picture when assessing whether they genuinely and reasonably believed their disclosures were substantially true and made in the public interest.

Employers should therefore maintain clear grievance and whistleblowing procedures, preserve relevant evidence and keep contemporaneous records of decisions and investigations. This will help demonstrate the reasoning behind the employer's actions if the matter later reaches the ET or is subject to appeal.