header-logo header-logo

Whistleblowing law protects ‘office holders’

16 October 2019
Issue: 7860 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Employment , Tribunals
printer mail-detail
Judges have whistle-blowing protection, the Supreme Court has held in a unanimous, landmark ruling.

Gilham v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 44 was brought by Judge Gilham, who previously worked at Warrington County Court. She raised concerns in 2010 about the impact of cost cutting reforms to the court service, and about bullying, the lack of appropriate and secure court room accommodation, the severely increased workload and administrative failures.

After blowing the whistle, she suffered detrimental treatment at the hands of other judges and court staff, and was signed off work with stress in 2013. She brought a claim in the employment tribunal. However, the tribunal held that she was an office holder not a ‘worker’ as defined in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore could not benefit from whistleblowing protection.

Judge Gilham contended the failure to extend this protection to judicial officers was a violation of her Art 10 right to freedom of expression.

Delivering the lead judgment this week, Lady Hale agreed, stating: ‘I can reach no other conclusion than that the Employment Rights Act should be read and given effect so as to extend its whistle-blowing protection to the holders of judicial office.’ Crucially, the court held that an occupational classification as a judge and as a non-contractual office holder is capable of being a ‘status’ within the meaning of Art 14.

Emilie Cole, partner at Irwin Mitchell, who represented Judge Gilham, said: ‘This is a massive step forward in equality law and will have wide implications for the greater good.’

According to Cole, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to take a narrower view that this status and the scope of protection would only apply to judges. However, the judgement appears to go much further in scope and include the status of other office holders within the ambit of whistle-blowing protection. Examples would include registered company directors, secretaries, board members, appointments under the internal constitution of an organisation, such as club treasurers or trade union secretaries, trustees and ecclesiastical appointments such as church ministers. 

Judge Gilham said: ‘You can’t have justice without independent and unafraid judges.’

Issue: 7860 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Employment , Tribunals
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll