Navigating organisational change and whistleblower protection

The Full Federal Court's ruling in Reiche v Neometals Ltd [2026] FCAFC 63 marks the most significant decision under whistleblower laws so far and comes as the federal government looks to review the laws. On 4 May 2026, the Court backed Neometals' decision to make an executive redundant, despite claims that he was protected by whistleblower laws. The decision is a win for businesses and demonstrates the need for companies to have robust whistleblowing policies in place.

Background

The case involved a Neometals executive, Reiche, who raised six alerts between February and July 2024 regarding governance and strategic risks within the company. Reiche believed he was considered a whistleblower by doing so and protected from reprisals by whistleblower laws. However, Reich was made redundant after raising the alerts.

Reiche argued that being made redundant amounted to reprisal under the whistleblowing provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and that he was therefore entitled to remedies.

At first instance, Feutrill J of the Federal Court dismissed the proceeding and Reiche subsequently appealed.

Full Federal Court decision

On appeal, the Full Federal Court found that Reiche could be made redundant because the Neometals board and CEO subjectively believed that his complaints were unfounded, or alternatively, that 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, such as redundancy.

The Full Court stated that a respondent 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.

Implications for employers and companies

The decision demonstrates that companies have the onus of proof in establishing that the alleged conduct was not a reprisal for an employee's protected whistleblower disclosure. It also highlights that employers may avoid liability if they can establish that they subjectively held the view that the whistleblower did not have sufficient grounds for their disclosure – even if that belief was wrong.

Further, it reinforces the importance of companies reviewing their whistleblowing policies, ensuring executives are able to respond appropriately to disclosures, and maintain strong record-keeping processes, as these records may later be relied upon as evidence.

A more detailed write up of this case can be found on Gadens’ website.

Authored by: 

George Haros, Partner

Bailiejean Hohnberg, Lawyer