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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll