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.


Simler DBE P J


[2016] UKEAT 0087 – 16 – 3110, [2017] ICR 404, [2017] IRLR 23




Employment Rights Act 1996 230(3), Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998


England and Wales

Cited by:

At EATGilham 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.
Appeal from (EAT)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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Legal Professions

Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.570731