New Case Law – Irregularities in the public interest under the Whistleblower Act

The dispute concerned whether a specialist clinic in plastic surgery, among other things, had violated the Act (2021:890) on the Protection of Persons Reporting Irregularities (the Whistleblower Act) and therefore was liable for damages. An employed plastic surgeon has reported internally, both in writing and verbally, on irregularities in the clinic’s operations, including concerns of an anaesthetist who worked at the clinic. The report was made before the Whistleblower Act came into force. The parties have disputed whether the reported information concerned irregularities and whether there was a public interest in the information being disclosed. The parties have also disputed whether the company attempted to prevent the reporting, whether the reporting person was subjected to retaliatory actions as a result of the reporting, and whether the company violated its reporting obligation under the Whistleblower Act.

The Labour Court has found that the burden of proof lies with the appellant to show that reporting of irregularities of public interest in accordance with the Whistleblower Act has taken place. The Labour Court has not found it proven that the reported irregularities are of public interest covered by the provisions of the Whistleblower Act. The company’s possible attempts to prevent these reports are therefore not covered by the scope of the Act. Considering that the Labour Court has found that the provisions of the Whistleblower Act are not applicable, the appellant’s claim cannot be upheld, and the district court’s judgment, according to which the appellant’s claim was dismissed, must therefore be upheld.

Read more here (in Swedish).