The Full Federal Court held that s 1317AD(1)(b) of the Corporations Act requires only that the putative wrongdoer subjectively believed or suspected that a disclosure had been or might be made about misconduct or an improper state of affairs asserted on reasonable grounds; it does not require the wrongdoer to appreciate that the disclosure attracts legal protection under Part 9.4AAA. The Court further held that the proscribed reason for detrimental conduct under s 1317AD(1)(c) must be a 'substantial and operative factor' in the decision, not merely a contextual or background consideration, applying the General Motors Holden v Bowling line of authority. The Court also confirmed that an actual qualifying disclosure is not a precondition to relief under s 1317AD, consistent with the statutory focus on the perception of whistleblowing rather than its actuality.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.