LAUREN KIERANS 331 that can be levied against the legislation. The fact that third parties can attract the protections under the Act if they suffer a detriment as a result of another person having made a protected disclosure undermines the position adopted to exclude volunteers from the scope of the Act. Further, the drafters could have adopted the approach in the UK and refused to place a cap on compensation. In addition, an obligation on recipients of disclosures to act on the information received could have been included in the Act. Even though the Act is still in its infancy, there has still been a surprisingly low number of judgements issued under it.82 It remains to be seen what impact the Act has had on promoting the disclosure of wrongdoing and in protecting whistleblowers in this jurisdiction. Under s 2 of the Act, the Minister is obliged to commence a review into the operation of the Act no later than the 15th July 2018 and he must present his findings before both Houses of Parliament within twelve months of that review being commenced. The results of this review will shed some light on the effect of the Act to date and it will be a welcome opportunity to strengthen its provisions where weaknesses are identified. Whistleblowing Commission, Report into the effectiveness of existing arrangements for workplace whistleblowing in the UK 17, that the introduction of this additional requirement may lead to "uncertainty and unpredictability and thus an increase in litigation." 82. Philpott V. Marymount University Hospital and Hospice Limited [2015] IECC 1; Donegal County Council V. Liam Carr (PDD 1/2016); Dougan & Clarke V. Lifeline Ambulance Service Limited (2016) Irish Times, 29 July; Aidan & Henrietta McGrath Partnership-and-Anna Monaghan (PDD 2/2016); Kelly V. AlienVault Ireland Ltd and AlienVault Inc (2016) Irish Examiner, 3 November; Employee V. Employer ADJ-00003371.