A change in whistle blowing detriment claims?

In Treadwell v Barton Turns Development the Claimant was dismissed by one of the Respondent’s directors. She claimed automatic unfair dismissal on the grounds of whistleblowing against the Respondent. She later applied to amend her claim to add a claim of whistleblowing detriment under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996 against the Respondent. The detriment relied upon was the decision taken by one of the Respondent’s directors to dismiss. She claimed that the Respondent was vicariously liable for this act of detriment.

She did not seek to bring a claim of detriment against the dismissing officer as an individual. The tribunal refused the amendment and the Claimant appealed. The EAT, allowing the appeal, held that it was bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Timis and Sage v Osipov which held, at para 91:

"It is open to an employee to bring a claim under section 47B (1A) against an individual co-worker for subjecting him or her to the detriment of dismissal, that is for being a party to the decision to dismiss and to bring a claim of vicarious liability for that act against the employer under section 47B (1B).  All that section 47B(2) excludes is a claim against the employer in respect of its own act of dismissal."

It was not bound to follow the opposite conclusion reached by the EAT in Wicked Vision v Rice. This case is, itself, currently on appeal to the Court of Appeal. 

Thanks to Daniel Barnett for this blog.