Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawBullying and harassmentLatest NewsPublic sectorTrade unions

Union loses legal challenge over PM’s decision in Priti Patel bullying case

by Ashleigh Webber 6 Dec 2021
by Ashleigh Webber 6 Dec 2021 PA Images / Alamy
PA Images / Alamy

A union has lost its High Court challenge against Boris Johnson’s decision to back the home secretary after she was accused of bullying civil servants, finding that he had not misinterpreted rules governing ministers’ behaviour.

The FDA union, which represents senior Whitehall staff, initiated the judicial review after the Prime Minister decided to keep Priti Patel in post, despite claims that she had broken the ministerial code.

It accused Johnson of misinterpreting the definition of bullying under the code, which sets out the standards expected of ministers and how they conduct their duties.

The case centred around how Johnson interpreted the statement, “harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the ministerial code and will not be tolerated”. The purpose of the judicial review was not to determine whether or not Patel had bullied staff.

When allegations of bullying against Patel emerged in 2020, Johnson sought advice from Sir Alex Allan, the independent adviser on ministers’ interests.

Bullying

Understanding and addressing workplace bullying

Is it lawful for an employer to dismiss a complaint of harassment or bullying from an employee who is thought to be “over-sensitive”?

Guidance from Sir Alex read: “My advice is that the home secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the ministerial code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect. Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals. To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the ministerial code, even if unintentionally.”

After the outcome of an inquiry into Patel’s behaviour was published, Patel issued an apology which stated: “I have clearly upset people in the past and on reflection – and I have had time to reflect upon this as well– looking at what has been published today on the report, there is no question I’m absolutely sorry for the upset that has been caused.”

However, a government statement issued after Sir Alex’s findings were published stated that the Prime Minister was “reassured that the home secretary is sorry for inadvertently upsetting those with whom she was working” and had determined that the ministerial code had not been breached. Patel therefore remained in post.

The FDA argued that in finding that the ministerial code had not been breached, Johnson had misinterprested the meaning of bullying. However, the High Court rejected this argument.

The High Court judgment said that it is important to read the government’s statement on the matter “in full and in context”, which demonstrates that the ministerial code was not misinterpreted in the way suggested by the FDA.

The judgment says: “In considering the allegations in the present case, the Prime Minister did not proceed on the basis that conduct would not amount to bullying contrary to paragraph 1.2 of the Ministerial Code if the minister concerned was unaware of, or did not intend to cause, offence or harm. Consequently, there was no misdirection as alleged. For that reason, this claim is dismissed.”

The High Court also ruled that decisions taken under the ministerial code can be challenged in the courts.

A step forward

FDA general secretary Dave Penman said: “Today’s judgment is an important step forward in the battle to ensure that ministers are held to account for their behaviour in the workplace.

Today’s judgment is an important step forward in the battle to ensure that ministers are held to account for their behaviour in the workplace” – Dave Penman, FDA

“The court has determined that the Prime Minister did not acquit the home secretary of bullying, and that he did not reject the findings of Sir Alex Allan that her conduct amounted to bullying. This will bring some comfort to those civil servants who were brave enough to come forward and give evidence to the investigation about the home secretary’s conduct.

“Crucially, the court has agreed that the behaviour falls within the definition of bullying set out in the code, whether or not the perpetrator is aware or intends it.

“The Prime Minister’s decision was widely interpreted at the time as exonerating the home secretary because she stated she was unaware of the impact of her behaviour, even though her conduct included shouting and swearing at civil servants. The Court agreed with the FDA’s arguments that it is the impact of behaviour that matters, so there is no ‘get out of jail free’ card for those who say it was not their intention, and this judgment reinforces that premise.”

Penman welcomed the ruling that decisions made under the code can be challenged.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

“This may well be the most critical aspect of the judgment. It means that the Prime Minister’s decisions on those standards can be challenged if they are deemed to be unlawful and, like everyone else, he has a duty to comply with the law,” he said.

Employee relations opportunities on Personnel Today


Browse more Employee Relations jobs

Ashleigh Webber

Ashleigh is a former editor of OHW+ and former HR and wellbeing editor at Personnel Today. Ashleigh's areas of interest include employee health and wellbeing, equality and inclusion and skills development. She has hosted many webinars for Personnel Today, on topics including employee retention, financial wellbeing and menopause support.

previous post
Managers still lacking skills to support workers with disabilities
next post
Uber loses High Court bid to challenge worker rights ruling

You may also like

Black security manager awarded £360k after decade of...

20 May 2025

Ministers urged to outlaw misuse of NDAs

7 May 2025

Lincolnshire doctor awarded £250k in race discrimination case

2 May 2025

BBC to ‘act immediately’ on workplace culture review

28 Apr 2025

Philip Green loses human rights case at ECHR

8 Apr 2025

Woman asked ‘why do you want to work’...

3 Apr 2025

One in seven experience workplace abuse, finds major...

2 Apr 2025

Former minister calls for end to ‘two-tier’ use...

2 Apr 2025

University of Sussex attacks Kathleen Stock freedom of...

27 Mar 2025

DSTL scientist constructively dismissed for gender-critical views

24 Mar 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+