Judge who says she had breakdown after being bullied at work wins landmark case

Claire Gilham says she was mistreated by colleagues after voicing unease about government austerity measures

(PA)

A judge who says she had a breakdown after being subjected to bullying in the workplace in the wake of government cuts has won a landmark case.

Claire Gilham, a district judge who worked at Warrington County Court in Cheshire, says she was mistreated after voicing unease about austerity measures inflicted on the legal system.

Court proceedings previously heard Judge Gilham was “bullied and overloaded with work” – prompting a breakdown that meant she was unable to return to her duties for four years.

She had fought a seven-year legal battle to have a “whistleblowing” claim aired at an employment tribunal – a fight she has now won.

A unanimous ruling by five Supreme Court justices on Wednesday means her case can now progress to a tribunal.

Judge Gilham said after the ruling: “Winning is a great relief after these seven long years.

“Ethically, I always knew that my point was right: that judges should have human rights protections.

“You can’t have justice without independent and unafraid judges, and if judges can’t speak out to protect the court system, then justice suffers and the people caught up in the system suffer too.

“I look forward to my claims being heard in the employment tribunal.”

Judge Gilham was appealing against an earlier verdict that stipulated judges are not given legal protections when whistleblowing, as they are not technically classified as workers, but as office-holders.

In February 2015, she 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 Ministry of Justice 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.

The legislation states: “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.”

She then fought and lost a test case at the Court of Appeal in December 2017.

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

Lady Hale, Supreme Court president, 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.”

Judge Gilham previously alleged she had been dealt with “detrimentally” after expressing worries about “systemic failings in the court administration”.

Additional reporting by Press Association