When Jhuti Doesn’t Apply: Clarifying s.47B(1A) ERA in Henderson v GCRM

Ms Ann Henderson v GCRM Ltd & Others [2025] EAT 136 (Lord Fairley P, 6 October 2025)

The claimant, an embryologist, was dismissed following alleged misconduct. She claimed automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 and detriment under s.47B ERA, asserting that the dismissal was caused by protected disclosures. The Employment Tribunal dismissed her s.103A claim but upheld detriment claims under s.47B(1A)/(1B). Both sides appealed.

Legal Issue

Whether:

1. Jhuti v Royal Mail Group Ltd applies to the s.103A unfair dismissal claim; and
2. A manager can incur personal liability under s.47B(1A) where the act of dismissal is combined with another’s motive (“composite liability”).
    

“A composite approach—combining the act of one individual with the motive of another—is unacceptable in principle under s.47B(1A).” [para 92]

Key Legal Principle

The EAT confirmed that Jhuti remains confined to determining the reason for dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996. A tribunal must find deliberate manipulation or the invention of a false reason by someone other than the dismissing officer. Merely influencing or contributing to the dismissal decision is insufficient.

By contrast, s.47B(1A) does not allow the “composite” attribution of another person’s motive to the decision-maker. A person only incurs personal liability if they themselves subject the worker to a detriment on the proscribed ground.

Tribunal Approach / Framework

For s.103A (Jhuti analysis):

1. Identify the decision-maker responsible for dismissal. [para 59]
2. Determine whether another individual dishonestly manipulated or invented the reason. [paras 60-64]
3. Ask whether that false reason was adopted by the decision-maker as the operative cause of dismissal. [para 66]
4. Only then can the false reason be attributed to the employer as the principal reason.
    

“Jhuti requires deceit, not merely influence. Tribunals must find manipulation amounting to invention or concealment.” [para 63]

For s.47B(1A)/(1B):

• The liable actor must personally perform the detrimental act with the proscribed intent.
• Employer liability under s.47B(1B) depends on identifying a culpable primary actor.
• Composite reasoning is “impermissible”; it extends liability beyond statutory intent. [paras 91-94]
   

Notes

“Part X and Part V are distinct statutory regimes; the former determines the reason for dismissal, the latter liability for detriment.” [para 89]

“A finding of material influence may satisfy s.47B, but it cannot substitute for the principal-reason test under s.103A.” [para 68]

Practical Implications

• Jhuti applies only to dishonest invention of reasons, not to workplace politics or influence.
• Practitioners must separate Part X (dismissal) from Part V (detriment) analyses.
• Claimants should plead specific manipulation if relying on Jhuti.
• Respondents should document independent decision-making and preserve evidence of what materials were relied upon.
• Managers without a proscribed motive cannot be personally liable merely because others acted improperly.
   

Authorities Cited

• Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2020] ICR 731 (applied)
• Timis v Osipov [2019] ICR 655 (distinguished)
• Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd [2015] ICR 1010 (followed)
• Malik v Cenkos Securities plc [2022] ICR 911 (followed)
• William v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust [2022] ICR 1255 (applied)
   

Statutory Provisions

• Employment Rights Act 1996
• s.47B(1), (1A), (1B), (1D), (1E)
• s.103A
   

16th Oct 2025

Michael Salter

Call 1999