Gilham v Ministry of Justice: CA 21 Dec 2017

Appeal by employment judge against dismissal of whistleblower’s claim.
Held: Dismissed. An employment judge is an office-holder, and neither office holder nor worker.


Lady Justice Gloster
(Vice President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division))
Lord Justice Underhill
Lord Justice Singh


[2017] EWCA Civ 2220, [2018] IRLR 315, [2018] 3 All ER 521, [2018] ICR 827




Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998


England and Wales


Appeal from (EAT)Gilham v Ministry of Justice EAT 31-Oct-2016
Jurisdictional Points: Worker, Employee or Neither – The Employment Judge made no error of law in concluding that District Judges are office-holders and do not also work under a contract of employment or for services. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from (CA)Gilham v Ministry of Justice SC 16-Oct-2019
The Court was asked whether a district judge qualifies as a ‘worker’ for the purpose of the protection given to whistle-blowers under Part IVA of the 1996 Act, and if not then was the absence of protection an infringement of her human rights.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.602606