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
  • 16 September 2026
  • Employment

Received an Employment Tribunal Claim? 6 Things Employers Should NOT Do

We are well and truly underway with implementation of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (“ERA 2025”) and October brings the next tranche of changes that employers will need to be ready for.

art
  • 14 September 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Key provisions found in a Shareholders’ Agreement – SHA Series Part 2 of 5

Discover the key provisions in a shareholders’ agreement, including ownership, decision-making, share transfers, exits and leaver clauses.

art
  • 11 September 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Data Protection Breaches – Personal Liability for Employees

It is well known that employers have obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018 (the “Act”) but, perhaps lesser known, is that employees can be held personally liable for certain actions amounting to criminal offences under the Act.

Pub
  • 07 September 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Frequently Asked Questions About Shareholders’ Agreements – Episode 1

Join Emma Docking and Jonathan Hayes as they explore some of the most frequently asked questions about shareholders’ agreements, including what they are, how they work alongside articles of association, and the risks of operating without one.

art
  • 03 September 2026
  • Employment

Employment Rights Act – October Changes

We are well and truly underway with implementation of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (“ERA 2025”) and October brings the next tranche of changes that employers will need to be ready for.

art
  • 02 September 2026
  • Immigration

Mandatory MFA for Sponsor Management System Users: What Sponsors Need to Know

The Home Office is introducing a significant security change to the Sponsor Management System (SMS). From 3 September 2026, the Home Office will begin a phased rollout of mandatory Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for SMS users.