*/
The judge taking a whistleblowing test case on judicial employment rights to the Supreme Court has called for support from the Bar.
Claire Gilham, a district judge who worked at Warrington County Court, has launched a crowdfunding campaign on the website CrowdJustice to help finance her case and overturn an employment tribunal ruling that judges cannot be classed as workers and are therefore not entitled to the whistleblower protections when making disclosures in the public interest.
Gilham raised concerns about overwork, death threats, and the increased violence in courts due to the under-funded justice system. She believes her complaints should be covered by whistleblowing protections, but instead said they resulted in her being bullied, overworked and put under additional stress.
Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled against her, but the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal and the case will be heard later this year.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by the government against an employment tribunal ruling that pension reforms discriminated against younger judges.
Government lawyers had argued that any age discrimination as a result of the changes was ‘justified’. But the Court of Appeal upheld the earlier tribunal ruling, in favour of the age discrimination claim brought by 226 members of the judiciary, including six High Court judges, that the changes meant they were treated ‘less favourably’ because of their age.
The judge taking a whistleblowing test case on judicial employment rights to the Supreme Court has called for support from the Bar.
Claire Gilham, a district judge who worked at Warrington County Court, has launched a crowdfunding campaign on the website CrowdJustice to help finance her case and overturn an employment tribunal ruling that judges cannot be classed as workers and are therefore not entitled to the whistleblower protections when making disclosures in the public interest.
Gilham raised concerns about overwork, death threats, and the increased violence in courts due to the under-funded justice system. She believes her complaints should be covered by whistleblowing protections, but instead said they resulted in her being bullied, overworked and put under additional stress.
Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled against her, but the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal and the case will be heard later this year.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by the government against an employment tribunal ruling that pension reforms discriminated against younger judges.
Government lawyers had argued that any age discrimination as a result of the changes was ‘justified’. But the Court of Appeal upheld the earlier tribunal ruling, in favour of the age discrimination claim brought by 226 members of the judiciary, including six High Court judges, that the changes meant they were treated ‘less favourably’ because of their age.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
The Ministry of Justice will match-fund up to 100 criminal pupillages, with grants available to criminal chambers across England and Wales. Similar to the COIC scheme, the grants will match-fund pupillages additional to those otherwise offered without government funding
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
