This week Salford City Radio hosted a special broadcast on the continuing plight of 50swomen and gave interviews to myself and Dr Jocelynne Scutt. Jocelynne also took a petition and letter to Downing Street yesterday calling for the government to implement in line with the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Discrimination against Women and Girls which has still not been fully introduced by successive British governments.
The key point is that mediation to solve the injustice facing some 3.5 million 50s women who waited more than six years to get their pension is possible under civil procedure rules. This was put to the Prime Minister and senior government lawyers in letters yesterday. CedawinLaw see they have a winning hand over this which is why the government don’t want to know over this.There is a team of mediators prepared to act.The All party group on state pension inequality has also raised the issue of mediation with Torsten Bell, the pensions minister but didn’t publish his response.
To emphasise again no legal challenge is required to initiate mediation.
A Top 500-ranked team of mediators is on standby to be considered for the neutral mediation role.
We learned from Waspi that post the Board’s withdrawal of its judicial review – and acceptance of £180,000 – the Government subsequently reneged on an understanding to initiate mediation solely with Waspi Limited.
CEDAWinLAW’s censored winning hand remains in play – no funds nor any legal challenge is required to do so – whilst The One Bright Light prepares to tell the story. Watch this space.
n extraordinary one day court hearing yesterday is still to decide whether the Charity Commission can bring a judicial review against the Parliamentary Ombudsman for exceeding her powers in two cases involving safeguarding of children and adults involving two separate charities.
Both cases were dramatically accelerated last year when the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, gave permission for Parliament to report the Charity Commission to the Committee of Privileges for trying to stop two reports by the Parliamentary Ombudsman being published until the courts decided what the legal position of the two bodies were in the handling of the cases. The Committee of Privileges is still considering the report on the matter more than six months after the referral.
Yesterday’s hearing allowed both sides to present arguments in what could be a landmark judgement on how far the Parliamentary Ombudsman can rule on action taken by charities to safeguard people and whether the Charity Commission is a regulatory body with no powers to compel charities to investigate cases which fall short of a police action.
The two cases were both dramatic and involved both historic child sexual abuse and a much more recent serious sexual assault. The first case became public when the complainant,Damian Murray contacted this blog and revealed a long standing cover up of historic child sexual abuse by a paedophile principal at a now closed religious school in Blackburn. You can read the story here.
The second case involved a complaint against another charity of a serious sexual assault on a vulnerable woman volunteer by the chair of the charity who entered into an inappropriate relationship with her.
Both complaints were upheld by the PHSO and compensation was paid. The dispute arises over whether the Charity Commission should have gone much further to remedy this and investigated both situations. This included whether the second charity should have been wound up and whether the religious foundation which ran the school should have been further investigated despite in both cases there were no police investigations.
The Charity Commission is saying the Parliamentary Ombudsman is exceeding her powers by demanding this. The Commission told the court that the body is a regulatory body and does not have the resources to do this and furthermore would put charities across the country in double jeopardy as they would be obliged to investigate cases where the police and the Crown Prosecution Service had decided that criminal proceedings had little chance of success.
In the argument before Judge Fordman the Commission said; “the PHSO’s decision in effect requires the Commission to carry out a quasi-criminal investigation in circumstances where the Commission does not consider it appropriate to do so, and where other relevant criminal and safeguarding agencies have investigated but not pursued a prosecution. This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Commission’s role, as well as its own legitimate policy as to how its resources should be deployed.”
The PHSO in its submission to the judge asked him to throw out the case. It argued that the judicial review was academic because the two reports had already been published and the Commission’s case was inarguable as it was irrational to say the case had been remedied and the ombudsman had wide discretion involving her findings. Finally it argued that the hearing interfered with the proceedings of Parliament.
A spokesperson from the Charity Commission said: “We acknowledge that the two complaints which led to our legal disagreement with the Ombudsman arose from some very difficult personal experiences, as was heard in court. We have long accepted that there are important lessons for the Commission to learn from the two cases in question and we have previously apologised to both complainants.
“However, at the heart of this case are vital principles about citizens’ right to due process when accused of a criminal offence, and separately avoiding charities being subject to undue overlapping regulation.
“First, the Ombudsman has told the Commission that we should assess the credibility of serious criminal allegations made against charity trustees where those allegations have already been investigated and not taken further by the police and other appropriate authorities. This runs contrary to long standing legal principles designed to ensure fairness to all.
“Second, the Ombudsman has gone beyond its legal remit by effectively second guessing our regulatory decisions. If left unchallenged, charities would in effect be subject to two overlapping regulators, creating confusion and uncertainty for them and the public.
“We have worked hard, over a lengthy period of time, to resolve these matters with the Ombudsman directly, but this has regrettably not proven possible. While we have pursued this legal action reluctantly, we are glad of the opportunity to present our case and seek the clarity of the courts in resolving this issue for the benefit of both organisations, the charitable sector, and the public we serve.”
My AI generated picture of Westminster to go with the blog.
Hits on my blog reached just over 230,000 last year not including the full number on Facebook and Linked In which takes the reach of the blog to even higher figures.
The most startling change in 2025 was a sudden interest from China that began in August and finally petered out at the end of the year. Figures from China totalled 128,000 over a five month period with at one stage Beijing having more hits than London. Altogether some 40 Chinese cities downloaded stuff from my site.
What was particularly interesting was that there were old blogs and nearly all were concerned with the same issue – the plight of the 50s women who faced a six year delay in their pensions involving Back to 60, CedawinLaw and WASPI.
The largest number of hits were on a 2019 blog which was cross posted with Byline.Com on the date set for a judicial review won by Backto60. In one year this blog added 12,507 hits taking it to over 136,000.
The second highest hits came on my story that men who “retired” at 60 had all their national insurance contributions paid by the state until they reached 65. This gained another 8,744 taking it to over 83,000.
Other large hits were on the Downing Street pensions robbery, the court of appeal decision and the decision to appeal to the Supreme court.
Two blogs not concerned with the issue but led to large hits from China included the leak of Dame Janet Smith’s report into the BBC’s mishandling of the paedophile Jimmy Savile and a 2015 blog on my statistics that showed my blog on the secret hideout of singer Amy Winehouse and a dispute with David Aaronovitch had driven traffic to the site.
I have talked with people who have had dealings with China who suggest that this was a data scraping exercise connected to planned changes in China’s pensions policy. China has one of the lowest ages for women’s retirement in the world at 50. It is currently running a 15 year plan to raise women’s retirement ages from 50 to 55 and 58 and men’s from 60 to 63. It looks as though the Chinese were sussing out the opposition in the UK.
The blog attracted over 8000 hits from the US, and over 1000 from Germany and Ireland down to single hits from places like Angola, Brunei, Myanmar and Mongolia.
The other big growth was on Linked In whose stats are not fully recorded by WordPress. At the end of the year the organisation sent me a note saying I was in the top five per cent of contributors on the site. This is very pleasing as I have had large number of hits where I have taken up whistleblowing cases, unfair employment tribunal hearings, failures of accountability in the NHS and in the judiciary, and injustice for patients in both the NHS and the coroner’s service.
Since it is read by professionals I have gained a following both at home and abroad which is growing. Let’s hope 2026 sees the reach of the blog to new heights.
Cedar in Law delegation at Number 10 Downing Street. From Left to Right: Sharon Wheeler, Joycelene Scutt, No 10 doorman and David Hencke
Cedaw in Law returned to Downing Street yesterday to deliver letters to Sir Keir Starmer asking him to intervene in the latest battle to secure justice for 50swomen.
The delegation is repeating their case for mediation and recompense for the discrimination and maladministration over the big rise in the women’s pensions age for 50swomen. One of the letters which would have gone to DWP lawyers also reiterated that all women’s groups should be consulted under the review promised by Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, not just a private arrangement between WASPI and the ministry. WASPI pulled out of their judicial review case to challenge the DWP over maladministration last week accepting a £180,000 payment in full and final settlement from the DWP.
Tonight Joanne Welch, the organiser for CedawinLaw, Jocelynne Scutt, the Australian judge who chaired a tribunal into the issue, and myself, a patron of Cedaw in Law and a lobby journalist, will appear on Salford City Radio, in the constituency of Rebecca Long Bailey, the Labour chair of the All party group on State Pension Inequality for Women.
The link to hear it is here and it is on Ian Rothwell’s show between 6 and 7 pm.
Joe Milner ex Loch Employment Law now Brightstar Law Ltd
Three months after this blog first reported (see here) unusual conduct by a leading employment law firm, public records reveal just how far that conduct went — and how the courts may have got it very wrong.
High Court records confirm that on 8 October 2025, Loch Employment Law Ltd launched a breach of contract claim (Case No. BL-2025-001254) against a group of former employees and entities, including a newly formed legal outfit called Brightstar Law Ltd.
Among the seven named defendants is Joe Milner, formerly a director of Loch Employment Law and Claudia Yorath former Group People Director for Loch Group.
Strikingly, Milner and Brightstar have fired back. Part 20 counterclaims have been filed not just against Loch Employment Law, but against its parent company Loch Associates Group Ltd, and even against Pamela Loch, the firm’s founder, in her personal capacity.
The public filings suggest not a polite departure — but a full-blown legal and commercial rupture.
Pamela Loch -founder of law firm
The Timeline That Should Have Stopped Everything
Official records from Companies House show that Milner’s directorship at Loch Employment Law ended on 24 July 2025. The company filed the required TM01 termination form the very next day.
And yet — a full 35 days later, on 28 August 2025, a legal document known as an N260 Statement of Costs was filed with Milner’s signature, identifying him as “Partner” of Loch Law.
That same day, a strike-out application brought in Loch Law’s name was allowed by the High Court. Costs were awarded against the claimant. The judge, Master Eastman, made no reference in his ruling to the fact that the signatory had no authority to act on behalf of the firm.
Four days later, on 1 September 2025, Milner became a director of Brightstar Law Ltd — a direct competitor.
A Warning Ignored
What makes this situation particularly troubling is that the issue was flagged to the court in advance.
According to public filings, the claimant — who had no legal representation — had:
Submitted evidence from Companies House showing Milner’s removal
Filed detailed submissions alleging that Milner’s filings were unauthorised
Cited Yonge v Toynbee [1910], a century-old case establishing that documents filed by solicitors without authority are void
Provided metadata analysis suggesting that at least one signature may have been reused from unrelated proceedings.
Despite these warnings, the strike-out application was allowed to proceed. The claimant’s submissions appear to have been entirely disregarded. There is no indication that the court considered the authority of the solicitor filing the costs claim — or whether the underlying application was even valid.
The Legal Consequence: A Void Strike-Out?
Lawyers consulted about the case (who are not connected to the parties) note that if Milner lacked authority, the strike-out application was not merely procedurally defective — it was void.
It is a foundational principle of English law that someone without standing or instructions cannot bind a firm. If the court had taken proper account of this, the claim might never have been struck out — and costs might never have been awarded.
That it was allowed to proceed suggests a serious failure to scrutinise who was behind the filings.
Vindicated — But at What Cost?
The claimant, Edward Romain, who now runs Blind Justice, a community interest company supporting litigants in person, appears to have been correct in every material respect, Milner had no authority and the strike application should not have been entertained.
Yet the cost order remains. The ruling stands.
In the view of legal observers, this raises a deeper question: How many other strike-outs, cost rulings or orders are being granted without the court verifying the authority of the legal representative?
When professional parties operate in bad faith — or when firms collapse mid-case — the risks to access to justice are real. The consequences fall heaviest on litigants without lawyers.
A Case That’s Still Unfolding
The High Court dispute — Loch Employment Law Ltd v Brightstar Ltd & Ors (BL-2025-001254) — remains live as of 2 December 2025.
Whether regulators or courts will revisit the earlier strike-out ruling is unclear. But one thing is certain: a litigant was right, and the system failed to listen.
A rare but virtually unreported public hearing by the Privileges Committee on Budget Day revealed a sharp divide between the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Charity Commission over the role of charities in safeguarding children and adults who have been sexually abused.
The hearing was sparked off by Parliament unanimously reporting the Charity Commission to the Privileges Committee after Stephen Hoare, the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, decided the Commission had breached Parliamentary privilege by wanting to delay publication of the reports until after a judicial hearing being called by the Commission. I did a report here .
The reports which Parliament compelled the Ombudsman to publish with final conclusions covering complaints of a recent adult sex abuse case – Miss A – and a historic child sexual abuse at a school -Mr U.
Mr U later contacted my blog and waived his anonymity to give me a detailed account of what had happened at a Roman Catholic school in Blackburn when it was run by a paedophile priest. The blog about this is here.
Saira Salimi, the Speaker’s Counsel
The hearing began with a statement on the issue from Saira Salimi, the Speaker’s Counsel.
She told the hearing: “This is quite a difficult case, because it does raise difficult questions about the relationship between parliamentary and legal accountability. There is a power conferring a discretion on a public authority to report in certain circumstances, and the report is made to Parliament. Although it looks at first glance like a function that might be reviewable by the courts, the interaction of parliamentary and legal accountability may mean that the decision is not justiciable.”
She said that if the issue of privilege had not been the raised the Parliamentary Ombudsman would have been inhibited from laying the reports before Parliament.
She added:” this is an unusual case where Parliament and the courts are on the same territory at the same time. That is not unprecedented but is unusual, because of the self denying ordinance that the House normally maintains in relation to matters before the courts under the sub judice resolution. It is my hope that our intervention in this case will assist both the courts and Parliament in carrying out their respective roles, which are constitutionally distinct ands equally important.”
Karl Banister, Director of Operations, Legal and Clinical and Deputy Ombudsman at Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). gave evidence.
He told MPs: “the[ charity] commission should have an independent person review Mr U’s case to consider whether the reasoning was adequately accounted for; consider whether the outcome would have been different; look for learning on how it engages in such cases;[and] look at its risk guidance;” Similar recommendations were made in Miss A’s case.
It is these recommendations that the Charity Commission is objecting to and says that the Ombudsman exceeded her powers and that such recommendations are unlawful.
He revealed considerable attempts were made at mediating the dispute.
“My assessment was that it was better not to provoke the commission to issue legal proceedings. It is obviously unattractive for two public bodies to be litigating. Were they to do so, they would likely get an injunction, and that would be an additional cost to the public purse.”
However in the end the Charity Commission decided to go ahead with a judicial review. it said:”“a declaration that the decision of 14 March 2025 is unlawful”—that is, our decision that it was not compliant—“that the 14 March decision is quashed, that the defendant pay the claimant’s cost of the claim or any other order the court considers appropriate. That is what the judicial review sought.”
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee were informed and the Parliamentary Ombudsman stuck to its point that the Charity Commission had not fully complied with decision. It was then taken out of their hands and Mr Hoare, the committee chair, decided to raise the privilege issue and compel the reports to be published so the committee could consider them.
David Holdswoth, chief executive of the Charity Commission
The Charity Commission brought a team of people to hearing headed by the chief executive David Holdsworth.
He told MPs:”The decision of the PHSO in its letter of 14 March—that we should reinvestigate criminal matters already investigated by the police, the CPS or the wider criminal justice system but deemed not able to proceed—has grave implications, in our view, for anyone involved in running a charity and, indeed, for wider citizens’ rights under the criminal justice process. It is also our view that the ombudsman cannot retake regulatory decisions made by the commission to force a different conclusion, replacing our judgment with its own. It is for those reasons that we reluctantly sought to clarify matters through the courts.”
It soon became clear – and this was reinforced during the national Child Sex Abuse inquiry – that the commission regards the Commission as primarily an administrative and registration authority not an investigatory authority.
It was also clear MPs and the Speaker’s Counsel thought that the matter could have been cleared up at a meeting of the PACAC committee without going to the courts.
But Felix Rechtman, head of litigation at the commission said:”: We are not saying that the PHSO decision is just inappropriate. We go further: we say it is unlawful, and matters of law are reserved to the courts under our constitutional arrangement.”
It is quite clear this issue is going to run and run. The courts have not given the Charity Commission a date for a judicial review hearing yet. The commission will first have to get permission to bring the judicial review and then have a hearing. The next stage will be the Privileges Committee report on whether the Commission has committed a contempt of the House.
UPDATE: Following publication of this post one issue has been raised by John Halford, Waspi’s lawyer from Bindman’s. He says it is not true that originally you needed permission for both parties or would have to pay £300 to attend the case management hearing. I have checked this back and staff at the administrative court did advise people to do this and told people If no agreement then you need to complete N244 Application form at a cost of £300 to register.This was overruled by the judge on December 2who made it an open hearing. I passed this back to Mr Halford only to find he had blocked me sending a reply. What extraordinary behaviour from a lawyer.
A long awaited decision on the six year battle for redress for the 3.6 million remaining 50s women has been promised by the Department for Work and Pensions by the end of February next year – as part of a deal agreed between the ministry and Waspi Ltd.
Royal Courts of Justice
Under the deal Waspi has dropped its judicial review claim due to be heard next week and accepted an offer by the DWP to pay the Waspi company £180,000 towards its legal costs in bringing the claim.
Most of the manoeuvring to obtain this arrangement has been behind the scenes in meetings between lawyers on both sides. As a result there will be no public hearing in the courts of the arguments where both sides would have put their case under the watchful eye of the Parliamentary Ombudsman who was an interested party. Waspi had been challenging Pat McFadden, the DWP secretary of state, over his decision not to award any compensation following the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings of partial maladministration over the communications informing the women.
05/07/2024. London, United Kingdom.Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Pat McFadden, poses for a photograph following his appointment to Cabinet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street
Then rather dramatically Mr McFadden on November 11 change his mind after the discovery of an earlier document which had been overlooked for 18 years revealing that attempts to inform the women had failed. Waspi’s lawyers Bindmans are said to have found it -presumably in the exchange of documents before the hearing. See my coverage of the document on this sitehere.
Before the hearing was dropped Waspi and DWP had the DWP arranged a case management hearing on December 3 with the most extraordinary terms allowing either side to block who would be allowed to attend or have to pay over £300 to obtain the right to attend.
This amounted to secret justice and it is no wonder on the day before the hearing the judge, Mr Justice Swift put out a national statement giving his directions for the case which made it clear it was a public hearing that anybody could attend and there were arrangements for people to hear it remotely.
This scotched the plan for a semi secret hearing so that evening it is clear that lawyers from both sides must have met and agreed to abandon the hearing the next day and Waspi Ltd agreed to pull out alongside the DWP from the two day judicial review.
It is my speculation that it will mean that some arrangement has been agreed under ” a nod and a wink” that the ministry will offer some form of compensation to some of the women. Certainly a seasoned lawyer like John Halford at Bindman’s ,would not have agreed to this without some hint or his client ,Waspi, would have been left in a very precarious position.
Waspi has not been alone in making representations to the government. Enter Edward Romain, a former whistleblower who has set up Blind Justice, a community interest company, to take up injustice cases and has joined joined forces with Cedaw in Law, to fight the case for the women on both discrimination and maladministration. I covered his case against Glyndebourne in an earlier article here. The case is now settled but it also discloses some strange behaviour by lawyers.His website is blindjustice.org.uk .
The day before the planned case review he delivered a recorded letter to Sir Keir Starmer and copied to Pat McFadden staking CedawinLaw’s claim to participate in any mediation process.
He followed this up with a powerful letter to Mr Oliver Towle, a senior lawyer at the Litigation Directorate for the DWP with a copy to the Treasury solicitor.
The letter asks the lawyer to confirm that following the court order that CEDAWinLAW and all other materially affected groups will be included in the consultations from the outset and clarifications of the intended structure and timeline for stakeholder engagement. The letter states
CEDAWinLAW represents the interests of 3.5 million women affected by State Pension Age changes.
The organization has made formal legal submissions and engaged with public authorities over four years.
It has pursued mediation and presented evidence to Parliament, highlighting ongoing advocacy efforts.
It also cites legal precedents quoting past cases covering natural justice, legitimate expectations, Wednesbury unreasonableness ( ie irrational responses), civil procedure rules and international law.
It concludes:”We respectfully submit that any reconsideration that does not include CEDAWinLAW would be procedurally flawed and open to future challenge. We remain available to assist constructively and can provide additional documentation or legal submissions if required. We look forward to your confirmation and to contributing meaningfully to the reconsideration process.”
One curious fact, actions by WASPI and CedawinLaw appear to have come to attention of the Chinese government over the last five months.Altogether I have received over 76,000 hits from China from Beijing and 40 other cities across China data scraping my blogs on the pensions issue.
China has one of the lowest retirement ages in the world. Women can retire at 50, men at 60. I wondering whether the Government is thinking of raising it and is looking at the opposition to it in the UK. President Putin tried to raise the pension age for women some time ago but had such opposition from the Babuskas that he backed down -probably the only reversal he made as President.
The full letter to the government lawyer can be read here.
NHS Resolution solicitor overlooking hospital doctors under investigation. An AI image illustrating the situation facing hospital doctors in the NHS
Following my blog on the secret process using NHS Resolution to help hospital managers discredit whistleblowers I decided to ask the advisory body a series of questions on its operations using the Freedom of Information Act.
What emerged was extremely revealing. NHS Resolution hides in its annual report how many hospital doctors are involved by lumping them together with dentists and pharmacists. But the breakdown revealed through FOI reveals it is almost exclusively targeting doctors to advise trusts on how to handle them.
It shows that in the last financial year it advised in cases involving 1168 doctors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. And the number of cases would be higher – as a number have multiple complaints from managers against them. This compares with 53 dentists and under 5 pharmacists. Indeed the pharmacists involved are so few – it won’t give me an exact number for fear of identifying individuals.
The PPS was last audited in 2019 and the organisation says it was then considered to be adequate and. effective. A more recent review in July this year by Dr Penny Dash looked just at the patient safety and learning role of the organisation and not wider issues.
Nor does NHS Resolution check whether it is given accurate information by managers. It said:” our role is to provide impartial and expert advice which is aimed towards supporting the local management and resolution of performance concerns. We are not a decision-making or an investigative body – in all cases, any decisions about the ongoing management, employment or contractual status of the practitioner rests solely with the healthcare organisation.”
In other words it is there solely to support health managers – who have no duty of candour – and it tries to include doctors by saying managers should tell them about their request for advice. In fact managers can and do ignore this as there is no requirement for them to say anything to the doctor they are investigating. So without hearing the doctor’s case it cannot be genuinely impartial. Also should a practitioner object to the partial advice given by a health manager they are ignored and the body continues to deal with the health manager.
NHS Resolution has not carried out any audit on the effect on doctors who are subject to complaints but it does do occasional research into problems arising on a very small scale. One example in its Insight Publication series last year was looking at whether ethnic minority doctors were badly treated in the NHS.
Involving just 11 doctors it said:”Most participants felt discriminated against based on their ethnicity and/or where they qualified. They felt this was reflected in the way their cases were handled by both their employer and Advice, and the higher rates of concerns raised against practitioners from ethnic minority backgrounds.”
Not surprisingly there was a lot of ignorance of how NHS Resolution’s advice service worked – given that health managers needn’t tell them about it. Again NHS Resolution’s solution was to give advice to managers which they need not take up. The full report is here.
Then there is the question of the phrase, performance. Is it a misnomer? NHS Resolution advice service does not look into the question of performance by doctors – relying on hospital manager for that – and it does not employ people qualified to do so. Many are solicitors, human resources staff and employment law experts and are not qualified to know when say a complex heart operation went wrong or the details of paediatric care. Indeed from doctors who have contacted me the trust often cites uncooperative behaviour and not working well with colleagues as part of its case.
Taken with earlier articles on the role of the General Medical Council a disturbing picture emerges which shows the hospital doctor is always at a disadvantage while the responsible officer – usually the medical director – holds all the cards – using NHS Resolution for advice and reporting the doctor to the GMC. Yet neither body is necessarily equipped to handle this and in NHS Resolution’s case, it is toothless to influence decisions by trusts. It can help to easily ruin a doctor’s career and even ban him or her for life for continuing their careers.
There seems to be a wholly unregulated sector covering NHS Resolution, the GMC and the trusts themselves and certainly no accountability. Patients have no idea how this is handled -yet their safety should be paramount in the NHS. And while NHS Resolution says it works under the direction of the Department for Health and Social Care my research shows it is not clear who regulates them.
If ever there was a case for reform of both systems, now is the time for something to be done.
Glum whistleblower at an Employment tribunal. Picture created through AI
A research report published this July by the new Labour government has painted a devastating picture of the failure of the culture of the whistleblower system in the United Kingdom.
The report, originally commissioned by the Tories under Rishi Sunak, and undertaken by researchers at Grant Thornton, one of the big accountancy firms, pulls no punches. It reveals how whistleblowers, whether in industry, the NHS and other public bodies, see a failure by the courts, employers, and even those appointed to help them, to protect them.
The sad news is the report, commissioned by the Department of Business and Trade, looks like remaining on the shelf – and the one improvement planned by the justice ministry could make matters worse. It plans to appoint 50 new employment tribunal judges to handle an increase in whistleblowing cases, among other issues, following the implementation of the new Employment Rights Act. For those who follow my blogs, they will know, they are more than often part of the problem, not the solution.
For a start whistleblowers found the terms used to describe whistleblowers as vague and confusing.
The report notes that terms like “reasonable belief,” “public interest,” and “worker” are seen as subjective, vague, inconsistent, and narrow, creating uncertainty about whether protections actually apply. One whistleblower expressed surprise when an Employment Tribunal decided their concerns didn’t meet legislative requirements despite their employer telling them they did.
The majority of whistleblower participants reported feeling victimized by their employer after blowing the whistle. The research found that many whistleblowers believed the framework doesn’t provide effective protection in practice. The “protection” offered is essentially just the right to seek redress after harm has already occurred, not proactive prevention of retaliation.
Multiple barriers for whistleblowers
Multiple barriers existed for whistleblowers when their case came before an employment tribunal. These included:
Resource imbalance: They lacked time, money, knowledge, and skills compared to their employers Mental toll: The process was described as complex, draining, and requiring resilience many didn’t have Evidential burden: Proving detriment was directly related to their disclosure was extremely challenging Delays: Tribunals experience significant delays
Time limits: Strict deadlines created additional barriers
Unfair treatment: Limited access to evidence and risks around non-disclosure agreements
Lack of trust: Many didn’t believe tribunals would be balanced or deliver meaningful
Nor did whistleblowers find people designated to help them such as regulators much good.
They found they could not protect them from detriments or victimisation. Some were conflicted particularly where there had been regulatory failure.
Several whistleblowers stated it was “not easy” to blow the whistle internally: They found:
Little faith in the process based on previous experience
Fear of retaliation after hearing stories from others
Restrictions from non-disclosure agreements
Conflicts of interest when those receiving reports were implicated
Lack of independence in investigations
Concerns not being properly investigated or addressed
No feedback or perceived remedies
The report describes the huge tolls on whistleblowers. At employment tribunals,phrases from whistleblowers included: public execution,exhausting, beyond difficult, miserable. complex, ardous, horrible and abusive, soul destroying,toxic and unsafe.
Litigants in person fared worse with descriptions that they were not treated respectfully by judges, lawyers and other parties and that they were not impartial.
Many stated they would not blow the whistle again due to negative experiences
Cases that involved international jurisdictions were even more complicated with slow co-operation from countries and regulators abroad.
The report makes suggestions for change. These are:
create a central body for whistleblowing
ongoing engagement and research to assess and monitor all aspects of the GB framework
efforts to improve effectiveness should be multifaceted and monitored
improved mental health support for individuals
legal advice and a degree of financial security while the claim progresses
consideration of disincentives and incentives, for example implementation of a United States style reward system
I contacted the ministry about the report:
A Government spokesperson said:
“The Employment Rights Bill will strengthen protections for whistleblowers reporting sexual harassment at work and extend time limits for bringing tribunal claims from three to six months.
“We are also fixing the employment tribunal system by ensuring more cases are resolved before reaching them and recruiting more Employment Judges.”
They said that didn’t regard the report’s conclusions as firm recommendations and many of the suggestions were outside the remit of the ministry.
At the end of July I published a scathing report from the House of Commons Justice Committee on the appalling state of the dysfunctional county court system. MPs were so appalled that they demanded a root and branch inquiry into the system to address its myriad problems – huge waiting times to hear cases, court buildings infested by rats, lack of disabled access and a chaotic and incompatible digital system to handle cases. You can read it again here .
Now we have the ministerial response. And what a tepid, pathetic and apology for an answer it is from Sarah Sackman KC. It even incorporates a potential ” pork barrel” issue with somehow one of the few courts now undergoing modernisation is in her own Finchley and Golders Green constituency in North London.
She rejects the main finding of the committee – the call for the inquiry to deal with the problem.
She said: “Rather than focusing on a root and branch review of the County Court, the Government is keen to focus on taking tangible and practical steps to improve the operation of the County CShe rejects the main finding of the committee – the call for the inquiry to deal with the problem.
She said: “Rather than focusing on a root and branch review of the County Court, the Government is keen to focus on taking tangible and practical steps to improve the operation of the County Court – which will benefit everyday users – without further delay. We are already seeing these measures bear fruit with improvements to the timeliness of claims that got to trial, improving call waiting times, growth in small claims mediation and further improvement to case management and file transfer systems.”
Her so called improvements include a reduction in waiting times for Small Claims cases from 50.5 weeks a year go to an amazing 49.2 weeks up to July. A fantastic reduction of of 1.3 weeks – I am sure she being cheered to the rafters for that. While those waiting longer face a 72.4 week delay compared to 79 weeks a year ago. I am sure they appreciate that.
Meanwhile many litigants are facing wasted costs for travel, legal fees and subsistence to attend hearings that are ” overlisted ” or as the result of poor management of the courts and MPs thought they should be compensated. But for Sarah Sackman ” over listing ” is fine and she rejected any money to reimburse claimants.
Probably the most interesting revelation is the paucity of the programme to modernise the courts to bring them up to 21st century standards. Only three courts are currently being modernised- Norwich, Taunton and Barnet and there are plans for Reading and Blackpool.
The Barnet court project got funding in October 2024 – three months after Sarah Sackman had been appointed solicitor general and two months after she became justice minister. I may be being unfair to her but I do find it curious that of all the courts to get modernise first is in her constituency.
Barnet County Court, Regents Park Road, Finchley
When you compare this with the long list in the justice committee ‘of courts that don’t even provide wheelchair access – only Taunton is being modernised. So for disabled people there is no hope of admission to Mansfield County Court; Brentford County Court; Darlington County Court ;Edmonton County Court; Hertford County Court and Lewes Combined Court Centre to name a few.
She does accept a number of reforms to improve digital communication in county courts but again I wonder if these will just add to the different schemes already in operation. On litigants in person, she accepted that there should be more granular data on their cases and also that guidance for litigants should be improved . But I wonder how far this will go given the heavy criticism from MPs on how difficult it is for litigants in person to understand procedure.
Frankly this is a disappointing response from the new Labour government to tackle the enormous problems in the court service and Sarah Sackman as a KC should be well aware of this. But it seems to reflect the general public mood that Labour is failing to make an impact.
Westminster Confidential 