Judge wins landmark ‘whistleblower’ appeal at UK’s highest court

Support us and go ad-free

A judge who says she was bullied and suffered a breakdown after raising concerns about Government cuts has won a landmark appeal at the UK’s highest court.

District Judge Claire Gilham has been involved in a lengthy legal wrangle to have a “whistleblowing” claim aired at an employment tribunal.

A unanimous ruling by five Supreme Court justices on Wednesday means that her case can now proceed at a tribunal.

The judge, who sat at Warrington County Court in Cheshire, says she was “treated detrimentally as a result of raising concerns about systemic failings in the court administration”.

But to date she had suffered defeat in her battle to bring a whistleblowing claim against the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in the employment tribunal, losing a test case at the Court of Appeal in December 2017.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

At the heart of the case are findings that judges are not afforded the legal protections given to whistleblowers under employment legislation because they are not classed as “workers” but are office-holders.

In February 2015, Gilham presented claims to the employment tribunal of “public interest disclosure detriments” – whistleblowing – and disability discrimination.

The disclosures concerned what were said to be poor and unsafe working conditions and an excessive workload in the courts where she was based, affecting herself and other judges.

The MoJ contested the tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain the whistleblowing claim because she was not a “worker” within the meaning of the 1996 Employment Rights Act.

Claire Gilham court case
Gilham’s case can now be aired at an employment tribunal (Victoria Jones/PA)

The Act says: “A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer, done on the ground that the worker has made a protected disclosure.”

Supreme Court justices ruled that the judge, and other judicial office-holders, were entitled to claim the protection given to whistleblowers under the 1996 Act.

Allowing her challenge against the earlier Court of Appeal decision, the justices remitted her case back to the employment tribunal “on the basis that the appellant is entitled to claim the protection given to whistleblowers under the Act.”

Supreme Court president Lady Hale announced: “I can reach no other conclusion than that the Employment Rights Act should be read and given effect so as to extend its whistleblowing protection to the holders of judicial office.”

During the 2017 proceedings, a QC representing the judge said her case was that “she was bullied and overloaded with work to the extent that she suffered a breakdown which led to her being unable to work for years”.

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. Many working people believe if you’ve been wrongly dismissed you can sign on and then apply for unfair dismissal but you can’t. Claiming unfair dismissal is to not accept dismissal and you claim you are still employed; once you claim benefits you’ve accepted dismissal so the unfair dismissal claim ends.

      I tried explaining this to a fellow a few years back who couldn’t grasp it. He said everyone’s entitled to claim unfair dismissal. I said yes they are; they are as entitled to claim it as they are entitled to private health, private education, living in gated communities etc. You’ve got to have money behind you, like this judge or a solicitor or a doctor has, or a powerful union to compensate you like the police or fire unions. That’s why there’s so few claims from ordinary workers, they just can’t afford months without benefits.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.