‘The Supreme Court has confirmed that a Tribunal may find that the reason for the dismissal is something other than that given to the employee by the decision-maker – even where that reason is genuinely held by the decision maker; Royal Mail Group Ltd v. Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 (“Jhuti”).’
Parklane Plowden, 9th December 2019
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The question for the Supreme Court in Royal Mail Group Limited v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 was whether in a claim for unfair dismissal can the reason for the dismissal be other than that given to the employee by the decision-maker?’
Pallant Chambers, 5th December 2019
Source: www.pallantchambers.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal in Royal Mail Group Ltd -v- Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 and has held unanimously that when deciding what was the reason for dismissal in unfair dismissal, it may not be enough simply to consider what was subjectively in the mind of the decision-maker. In a unanimous decision delivered by Lord Wilson (Lady Hale (President), Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge and Lady Arden concurring) the Supreme Court has held that where the real reason is hidden from the decision-maker behind an invented reason, the court must penetrate through the invention and decide upon the basis of the real reason [paragraphs 60-62 of the Judgment]. ‘
Littleton Chambers, 27th November 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The appeal concerned the dismissal of Ms Jhuti from her employment by Royal Mail Group Ltd. The key question of law that it raised was whether in a claim for unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the reason for the dismissal can be other than that given to the employee by the employer’s appointed decision-maker.’
UKSC Blog, 27th November 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘A legal secretary who claimed she felt humiliated and insulted by a colleague commenting on her 50th birthday has lost her claim for harassment and age discrimination against the law firm.’
Legal Futures, 8th November 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The UK Supreme Court’s judgment in Gilham demonstrates how human rights can be used to widen the class of individuals who benefit from employment rights (the “personal scope” of the rights). Further, the court’s reasoning evidences a shift away from contractual thinking in labour law.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 1st November 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Whistleblowing protection continues to expand and develop. Even without reliance on Art.10 ECHR the Courts have not been shy of adopting what might at first appear to be a strained construction of the legislation to further the underlying policy objectives. Now the Supreme Court’s decision in Gilham v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 44 has demonstrated the strength of the interpretative obligation to construe the legislation in accordance with Article 10 (or that article read with A.14 ECHR). Indeed this points to the possibility of extending the scope of protection much further. Litigation over the position of secondees, applicants, volunteers and others, as well as in relation to detriment inflicted because of a perception (justified or not) that a worker has or may be about to make a disclosure, or was associated in some way with someone else’s disclosures, can be expected. These cases will need to explore the scope of the State’s positive obligation to protect freedom of expression. They will no doubt face arguments that the necessary reading down is against the grain, or contrary to fundamental features, of the statutory provisions.’
Littleton Chambers, 17th October 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘In Gilham v MOJ the Supreme Court considered the novel question whether judges are workers for the purposes of the protection against whistle blowing detriment in the Employment Rights Act 1996.’
Old Square Chambers, 16th October 2019
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘The UK Supreme Court has unanimously granted an appeal by a district judge against the Court of Appeal’s decision that she did not qualify as a “worker” under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”), and therefore could not benefit from the whistleblowing protections it conferred.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th October 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Non-disclosure agreements must not prevent employees bringing discrimination cases against their employer, new guidance from the equalities watchdog says.’
Daily Telegraph, 17th October 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘MPs have accused aid organisations of “dragging their feet” over combating sexual exploitation and abuse in the sector, despite safeguarding pledges made in 2018 after the Oxfam abuse scandal. Work to improve protection and support for whistleblowers has “stalled”, and more needs to be done to protect survivors, a report by the UK international development committee (IDC) has said.’
The Guardian, 18th October 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Ms Gilham appealed on all three grounds. She also appears to raise the distinct but related question whether she can bring her claim as a ‘Crown employee’ within the meaning of the ERA, s191.’
UKSC Blog, 9th October 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Claire Gilham is a district judge. She claims that she was subjected to various detriments as a result of making complaints about her judicial workload and the poor management of the courts.’
UKSC Blog, 9th October 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange is to remain in prison when his jail term ends because of his “history of absconding”, a judge has ruled’
BBC News, 13th September 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Employees who research how to blow the whistle can rely on the same legal protections as actual whistleblowers, a tribunal has found.’
Law Society's Gazette, 9th August 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A group of politicians has recommended an extensive overhaul of whistleblowing legislation, including the creation of a legal definition for the term “whistleblower”.’
OUT-LAW.com, 6th August 2019
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The charity watchdog is investigating claims that an organisation formerly led by the man enlisted to put the “house in order” following the Oxfam abuse scandal had allegedly covered up another sex scandal.’
Daily Telegraph, 23rd June 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025