Protected disclosures – Ireland's current landscape

Reporting obligations were also extended, placing a high onus on employers to establish reporting lines and to protect employees who raise such disclosures. Since 17 December 2023, all private sector organisations employing 50 or more people must put a protected disclosure policy in place to facilitate the processing of these disclosures within the timelines established by the 2022 Act.

Here, we summarise Ireland's current protected disclosure landscape, including learnings from recent case law.

Redress

Employees have multiple avenues to seek redress for whistleblowing-related issues, including claims before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) under protected disclosure or unfair dismissal legislation, as well as applications for injunctive relief in the Circuit Court. Importantly, these claims do not require the employee to have 12 months of service, making protections accessible from the outset of employment.

Learnings from recent case law

Some of the key learnings from litigation in this space in the last 12 months included the following:

Punitive Awards

Penalisation claims brought under the Protected Disclosures Act empowers an adjudicator to award such compensation as he/she “considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances”. Unlike other employment claims, awards are capped at five years remuneration under protected disclosures legislation.

This was demonstrated very clearly in the case of A Worker v A Massage Therapy Business, ADJ-00043225/2023, where the maximum award of five years' pay/260 weeks (€91,000) was made by the WRC. In the case:

• The Complainant was employed as a masseuse by the respondent in February 2020. She raised concerns when she was instructed to provide sexual services to clients as part of her role.
• In making an award at this level, the adjudication officer took into consideration that the complainant's first language was not English, meaning she was an exceptionally vulnerable worker.
• The adjudicator clearly stated that the basis of assessment is not limited solely to financial loss and indicated that consideration may be given to other factors to include an assessment of whether an award is "effective, proportionate or dissuasive".
• In this case, the adjudication officer determined that other factors related to the employee exacerbated the employer's behaviour, resulting in the maximum award being made.

Confidentiality and anonymisation

According the WRC Annual Report 2024 published in on 24 April 2025, the use of mediation services increased by 14% in the last year. This is a continuing trend which appears to be driven by the desire for confidential resolutions in circumstances where hearings before the WRC must be conducted in public (since the Supreme Court case of Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer & Ors [2021] IESC 24, in 2021). It is open to the parties to make an application to anonymise proceedings and determinations due to the existence of special circumstances – but such applications are rarely made to the WRC.

The case of A Finance Manager v a Charity - ADJ-00051548/2025 involved a dismissal based on a penalisation claim under unfair dismissals legislation. In the case:

• The complainant was hired by the respondent on 1 September 2023 and fired by the respondent on 2 November 2023 (on notice in line with his employment contract) during his probationary period.
• The complainant alleged that he was dismissed as a result of making a protected disclosure to the CEO in respect of financial matters. It was accepted by the adjudication officer that the dismissal resulted "wholly or mainly from the employee having made a protected disclosure”.

Rather unusually, the respondent made a successful application for the hearing to be conducted in private with the parties names being anonymised on public interest grounds. In this case, they successfully relied on the fact that there were ongoing investigations by the state which might be prejudiced and the sensitive work being completed by the charity.

Limited application of "function of the worker" exception

There are limited exclusions which fall outside what would be deemed to be a protected disclosure to include concerns raised in the course of an employee's role. Section 5(5) of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, as amended, specifically excludes concerns raised “if it is a matter which it is the function of the worker or the worker’s employer to detect, investigate or prosecute and does not consist of or involve an act or omission on the part of the employer. ”

The High Court case of Breban v. Catch Security Systems [2025] IEHC 366 involved an injunction application to the Circuit Court for penalisation under protected disclosure legislation. In this case:

• The appellant was employed by the respondent as an installation/security systems engineer.
• The applicant argued they had been dismissed on foot of raising fire safety concerns after examining a fire safety alarm panel in an apartment.
• The respondent relied upon the exclusion in Section 5(5). The judge agreed that the appellant had sufficiently established a reasonable, arguable and weighty ground that his dismissal arose wholly or mainly as a result of his disclosure, in light of its sufficient proximity with his dismissal.
• However, the judge rejected the Section 5(5) defence as that exemption must be strictly construed. In this case, the appellant was retained to carry out specific works identified by a fire officer. Therefore, his role was not to detect, investigate, or prosecute.

If you need any advice on protected disclosures, get in touch with our experts for further advice.