Supreme Court extends whistle-blower protection
The decision of the Supreme Court extends the scope of whistle-blower protection and is a wider approach than that taken in direct discrimination claims.
The Supreme Court has now published its decision in respect of Royal Mail Group Limited v Jhuti.
The Employment Tribunal previously made findings of fact that:
- Ms Jhuti had made protected disclosures to her line manager;
- The line manager’s response was to pretend (over the course of several months) that her performance was inadequate; and
- In due course, another officer appointed by the company decided that Ms Jhuti should be dismissed.
Importantly, the dismissing officer had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the material indicating that Ms Jhuti’s performance was inadequate and so, from her perspective, the genuine reason for dismissal was inadequate performance. The issue was therefore whether, in an unfair dismissal claim, the reason for dismissal could be other than that given to the employee by the decision-maker. The Employment Tribunal and Court of Appeal held that it couldn’t; the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that it could. The Supreme Court has now agreed with the EAT.
The Supreme Court decided that where a person in the “hierarchy of responsibility” above the employee (here, Ms Jhuti’s line manager), determines that the employee should be dismissed for one reason (here, the making of protected disclosures) but hides that reason behind an invented reason (here, inadequate performance) which the decision-maker adopts, then it is the duty of the court to look through than invention. The reason for dismissal will therefore be the hidden reason, rather than the invented one.
The decision of the Supreme Court extends the scope of whistle-blower protection and is a wider approach than that taken in direct discrimination claims where it is the thought-processes and motivation of the decision-maker (or makers) that remain key. Employers will need to ensure that they have a complete picture of the situation prior to dismissal to avoid findings that decisions have been taken on the basis of incorrect information, particularly where, as was the case in Jhuti, the employee is too ill to fully participate in the dismissal process.
Contact
Mark Hickson
Head of Business Development
onlineteaminbox@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)370 270 6000
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
CJC review of litigation funding in England and Wales: Key findings and analysis
Opinion
Pride Month: A time to review DEI
Opinion
Employer redundancy guide: Sourcing alternative employment
Legal Update
DEI in school governance: Key themes and insights
Guide
Using AI for recruitment: The data issues
On-Demand
Nuclear PSG webinar: Conflict avoidance on major projects
Guide
The socio-economic duty: Shifting mindsets for true social mobility
Legal Update
Trans matters in health for trusts and acute settings: The decision in For Women Scotland
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s School Leaders Survey illustrates concerns over financial resilience ahead of spending review
Press Release
Majority of UK organisations remain committed to sustainability and ESG, says new research
Legal Update
Ireland’s first Consumer Representative Action issued in the High Court
Legal Update
Navigating the streets: The legal landscape of low traffic neighbourhoods
Opinion
Disciplinary procedures and mental health: Employer considerations
Opinion
Supreme Court gender ruling: Ensuring inclusion in the workplace
Legal Update
Celebrating diversity and inclusion in the NHS: Equality, Diversity, and Human Rights Week 2025
Legal Update
Supporting mental wellbeing in the workplace: Practical steps for businesses
Legal Update
A New chapter for families: Reflecting on the first month of the introduction of neonatal care leave
Legal Update
Trans matters in care: The decision in For Women Scotland
Legal Update
Trans matters in sport: The decision in For Women Scotland
Opinion
EHRC releases guidance for employers after Supreme Court ruling on definition of woman
Legal Update
2025/26 employment rates and limits: Are costs increases having a negative impact on the job market?
Press Release - Firm news
Browne Jacobson appoints Bernhard Maier as Head of Arbitration
Legal Update
Case analysis: Enforceability of MOUs in commercial transactions
Legal Update
Sweetened dispute: The VAT battle over Mega Marshmallows
Press Release - Firm news
Browne Jacobson expands international disputes offering with new Head of Commercial Dispute Resolution in London
Legal Update
The concept of sex is binary: For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers Supreme Court case explained
Legal Update
Updated Modern Slavery Act Transparency Guidance: Key obligations and steps for businesses
Legal Update
Do whistleblowing protections extend to external job applicants?
Article - Employment Rights Bill
The Employment Rights Bill: What the new amendments mean for employers
On-Demand - Care Focus webinar series
Care Focus: Regulatory and employment
Legal Update
Rukhadze and others v Recovery Partners GP Ltd: Fiduciary duties and the duty to account for profits
Legal Update
Fair conduct dismissal: Guidance from the Court of Appeal
Legal Update
Employment healthcare briefing: March 2025
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Obsequio Group on strategic expansion
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Mercia Ventures on £3.9m investment in highways drainage specialist Crown Plus
Legal Update
The ripple effect: How US DEI shifts are impacting UK and Ireland businesses
On-Demand
EdCon 2025: Top five takeaways
Opinion
That’s Asda price: Tribunal considers that retail roles are of equal value to distribution centre jobs
Legal Update
Recent developments: Awards of non-material damages under the GDPR
