Navigating organisational change and whistleblower protection

The Full Federal Court has backed Neometals’ decision to make an executive redundant, despite them claiming to be protected by whistleblower laws. This decision is a win for businesses and demonstrates the need for companies to have robust whistleblowing policies in place.

Background

The Full Federal Court handed down its decision on 4 May 2026 in Reiche v Neometals Ltd [2026] FCAFC 63.

A Neometals executive, Reiche, raised six alerts between February and July 2024 regarding governance and strategic risks within the company. Reiche thought he was considered a whistleblower by doing so and thus protected by whistleblower laws. However, Reiche was made redundant following this conduct. In response, Reiche argued that being made redundant amounted to reprisal for whistleblowing as per pt 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and therefore was entitled to various forms of relief. Feutrill J dismissed the proceeding, and so Reiche appealed on 15 separate grounds.

Full Federal Court decision

On appeal, the Full Federal Court found that Reiche could be made redundant as the Neometals board and CEO subjectively believed that Reiche’s complaints were unfounded, or alternatively, it was part of his job to raise such matters and therefore he was not protected by whistleblower laws that would have protected him from reprisals, like being made redundant. Justices Elizabeth Raper, Penny Neskovcin and John Snaden said “a ‘first person’ who establishes that they neither believed nor suspected that there existed or exists reasonable grounds upon which to have made or to make a disclosure will escape the reach of the section even if that belief or suspicion is wrong.”

This decision demonstrates that companies have the onus of proof in establishing that the alleged conduct did not occur due to a belief that the employee had made a protected disclosure.

Key Takeaways

This ruling is the most significant under the legislation so far and comes as the federal government looks to review the laws.

This decision can potentially allow employers to avoid liability if they can establish that they subjectively did hold the view that the whistleblower did not have sufficient grounds for their whistleblowing.

Companies should conduct a review of their own whistleblowing policies to ensure that, if a disclosure is made, the executives of the company are able to respond appropriately. This includes reviewing record keeping processes associated with whistleblowing polices, as these records may be relied upon as evidence.

To ensure your company is complying with this whistleblowing regime, please reach out to our Workplace Advisory and Disputes team.

If you found this insight article useful and you would like to subscribe to Gadens’ updates, click here.

Authored by:

George Haros, Partner
Bailiejean Hohnberg, Lawyer