Carr v Bloomberg: What we argued, what they argued (1)

By Mathew Carr

Quick summary analysis / opinion / report

Dec. 1, 2021 (LONDON): 

A fascinating day in London’s Rolls Building, where the UK Employment Appeals Tribunal holds hearings.

I’m arguing I was fired in May last year for whistleblowing about the climate-news coverage, my former employer is arguing I was fired for incompetence.

My barrister and I argued today that the Respondent (Bloomberg LP) wasn’t properly reporting on the climate crisis.

We argued the Paris climate deal has changed the definition of what was climate activism and what wasn’t, if you are a neutral journalist.

We argued the Respondent deliberately concealed, not only the extent of the climate crisis, but how to overcome it (eg carbon pricing, eg reporting on flawed global market structure).

We argued Bloomberg didn’t account properly for the remaining carbon budget (which is just a few years).

I met in person for the first time Mr James Laddie, the Respondent’s QC and advocate, from Matrix Chambers.

He said it was good to see me, in my full dimensions.

I see he was probably referring to the fact that that we had only met prior to this, online …several times in several preliminary hearings.

That’s because of the global pandemic.

When we met, I wondered whether his comment on my dimensions could also have referred to the fact that I have an Aussie-sized beer gut.

Was he goading me? It’s unclear.

Mr Laddie argued my whistleblowing wasn’t specific enough, didn’t show clearly enough what Bloomberg was doing wrong, if anything.

What is clear is that we have a real fight on our hands.

Should some of my whistleblowing have been struck out by a lower Tribunal, or not?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal Justice Heather Williams was super professional …keeping her cards close to her chest.

She said she would read out a decision at 11am London time, Friday, December 3.

She’s under pressure to do this because there is a main lower-Tribunal hearing set for the 10 days starting Dec. 6 — that’s Monday.

She might, or might not, provide guidance on how to whistleblow about damage to the climate / environmental damage — something that’s not been tested much before in courts … and / or how my alleged whistleblowing fell short.

I’ll try to keep you informed here, in a neutral way, because of contempt-of-court rules.

Thanks for the support.

Please share. Eyes on this situation matter, even if my arguments are not perfect.

Comments my way. Apologies if I don’t respond quickly to emails / posts / social media / messages / comments / story updates.

For context, see these links:

I was asked not take photos after taking this one at the courts. I was not asked to delete this. So, here it is. I will remove it, if asked.

(Updates headline)

Leave a Reply