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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll