Search

How can we help?

Icon

Landmark Supreme Court judgment extending whistleblowing protection

The Supreme Court, in Jhuti v Royal Mail, has reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision and held that an employee was unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure despite the fact that the decision-maker was unaware of the disclosure.

After the employee had made a protected disclosure to her line manager, she was subjected to an onerous performance management process in which her manager set unrealistic targets and presented a false picture to HR. The company appointed another manager to review her performance, who relied upon the performance information provided, and the employee was dismissed.

The Supreme Court found that where a more senior person than the employee decides they should be dismissed because of a protected disclosure but hides this reason behind an invented one (i.e. poor performance) which is subsequently adopted by the decision maker, the hidden reason will be found by the court to be the actual reason for dismissal.

After the employee had made a protected disclosure to her line manager, she was subjected to an onerous performance management process in which her manager set unrealistic targets and presented a false picture to HR.

The Court held it had a duty to “penetrate through the invention rather than allow it to infect its own determination”. Therefore, the real reason for the employee’s dismissal had been her disclosure, not her performance.

The ruling will make it harder for employers to rely on the lack of knowledge of the decision-maker where another employee has manipulated them into dismissing a whistle-blower.  Employers will need to ensure they gather as complete a picture as possible (including speaking with the employee) before taking any decision to dismiss.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 23 October 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Section 172 Companies Act 2006: Key lessons from Saxon Woods v Costa

The Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods v Costa UKSC 21 clarifies directors’ duties under Section 172 Companies Act 2006, confirming that good faith requires both honest belief and appropriate conduct.

art
  • 22 October 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Shareholders’ Agreements for Founders and Investors – SHA Series Part 3 of 5

A shareholders’ agreement is arguably one of the most valuable corporate governance agreements (along with articles of association) in any private UK company with more than one shareholder.

art
  • 19 October 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work Checks: Are UK businesses becoming immigration enforcement officers?

The UK’s Right to Work regime has undergone a significant expansion, with changes taking effect from 1 October 2026.

art
  • 15 October 2026

Clarkslegal celebrates continued success in Chambers and Partners UK 2027

Clarkslegal is delighted to announce that we have once again been recognised by Chambers and Partners UK 2027, celebrating continued success across the firm and a number of enhanced individual rankings.

Pub
  • 15 October 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Data breaches and ICO investigations: Responding with confidence

In this podcast Harry Berryman and Zahra Navarro discuss recent ICO enforcement action, common causes of data breaches, and the practical steps organisations should take to respond effectively when incidents occur.

art
  • 14 October 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

London Court of International Arbitration v International Chamber of Commerce: Key differences

Compare LCIA and ICC arbitration rules, costs, confidentiality provisions and expedited procedures. Learn the key differences between these leading international arbitration institutions and how to choose the right option for your commercial dispute.