´óÏó´«Ã½

The union for senior civil servants has lost its High Court challenge to Boris Johnson's decision to back Priti Patel over claims she bullied staff.

Last year, the prime minister kept his home secretary in post despite a report accusing her of breaking the ministerial code.

The FDA union challenged Mr Johnson's decision, arguing he had incorrectly interpreted the definition of bullying.

However it had not been "misinterpreted".

It said Mr Johnson had not, denied that Ms Patel's behaviour could constitute bullying.

Despite losing its legal bid, the FDA said parts of the judgement represented a "major victory".

General Secretary Dave Penman said: "Whilst we are disappointed in the final judgment, there is a lot here that helps us protect civil servants from the conduct of ministers."

He welcomed the court's ruling that decisions taken on the ministerial code - the rules that govern ministers' behaviour - could be challenged in court.

And he said the judge's finding that Mr Johnson had not acquitted Ms Patel of bullying would "bring some comfort to those civil servants who were brave enough to come forward and give evidence".

He added that the union was considering whether to appeal the judgement.

A No 10 spokesman said the prime minister welcomed the ruling which he added "supports our long-standing position that the PM is the arbiter of the code, and ministers must retain the confidence of the prime minister to maintain in office".

In November 2020, the prime minister's then adviser on standards Sir Alex Allan ruled that Ms Patel had "unintentionally" broken the ministerial code.

Sir Alex found that she had not consistently met the high standards required by the ministerial code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect and cited examples of "shouting and swearing".

"Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals."

Ministers are expected to resign if they are found to have broken the ministerial code.

However Mr Johnson rejected his adviser's findings and said he had "full confidence" in his home secretary.

Sir Alex subsequently resigned from his role.

Following the report, Ms Patel gave a "fulsome apology" but argued she had not been "supported" - at the time claims were made - by her department.

The union's legal case rested on two questions - whether the court could rule on how the prime minister interpreted the ministerial code and whether the prime minister had "misdirected" himself over the meaning of the word bullying in the ministerial code.

On the second question, the union argued the prime minister had wrongly decided that conduct only constituted bullying if the person concerned was aware their behaviour could be upsetting or intimidating.

Lawyers acting for the FDA, said this was the "only reasonable" explanation for the prime minister rejecting Sir Alex's findings - but the government argued that this was not the case.

The court agreed, concluding that the prime minister had ruled Ms Patel had not broken the ministerial code, but he did not deny that bullying had taken place.