Rice (Respondent) v Wicked Vision Limited (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0005

Parties

Appellant(s)

Wicked Vision Ltd

Respondent(s)

Ian Rice

Issue

(1) Does section 47B(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the “ERA”) prevent an employee from bringing a claim under section 47B ERA against a co-worker and/or their employer for being subjected to detriment where that detriment amounts to a dismissal? (2) Were the Court of Appeal bound to apply the earlier decision of Timis v Osipov [2018] EWCA Civ 2321 (“Osipov”) on section 47B(2) ERA in the present appeals and was that decision correctly decided?

Facts

These linked appeals concern whether two employees were entitled to bring a claim against their respective employers under section 47B ERA for being subjected to detriment done on the ground that they made a ‘protected disclosure’ (broadly, certain forms of protected whistleblowing), where that detriment included their dismissal. Alternatively, were they prevented from doing so by virtue of section 47B(2) ERA which provides that section 47B ERA does not apply where “the detriment in question amounts to dismissal (within the meaning of Part X)” such that any claim by the employee in respect of the dismissal should instead be made under Part X of the ERA and its unfair dismissal regime. Mr Rice was employed by Wicked Vision Limited, a company owned by Mr Strang, as its Head of UK Sales from December 2019 until his dismissal in February 2021. The stated ground for his dismissal was redundancy. Mr Rice commenced proceedings against Wicked Vision Limited and alleged that Mr Strang, the employer’s owner, had actually decided to dismiss him because he made ‘protected disclosures’ as a whistleblower. If true, the effect of section 103A ERA is to render such a dismissal as automatically unfair for the purposes of the unfair dismissal regime in Part X of the ERA. Mr Rice sought to amend his claim to include complaints that he had also been subjected to detriments due to his ‘protected disclosures’, contrary to section 47B ERA (the “Wicked Vision Appeal”).. One such detriment was his actual dismissal by Mr Strang, however, Mr Rice did not seek to add Mr Strang to the proceedings or bring a claim against him concerning this. The Employment Tribunal allowed Mr Rice to amend his claim and considered that section 47B did not require Mr Strang to be joined to proceedings. Wicked Vision Limited appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the “EAT”) arguing that bringing a claim against the relevant co-worker, in this case Mr Strang, should have been a pre-condition to Mr Rice’s claim against Wicked Vision Limited. The EAT considered whether the earlier Court of Appeal decision in Osipov was binding upon them. That case held that a claim could be brought against a co-worker directly under section 47B(1A) ERA including where that co-worker’s act amounted to a dismissal notwithstanding section 47B(2) ERA. The EAT held that the appeal should be allowed. This was because Osipov was distinguishable and section 47B(2) ERA expressly prevented a claim under section 47B ERA where the detriment complained of by the employee amounted to unfair dismissal claims against the employer. This was the case with Mr Rice’s section 47B ERA claim such that it could not be made. Separately, Ms Treadwell brought an unfair dismissal claim against Barton Turns Developments Limited. She also alleged that her dismissal was automatically unfair due to section 103A ERA as she had made a ‘protected disclosure’. Alongside another claim, she applied to amend her claim to include complaints of suffering detriments under section 47B ERA (the “BTD Appeal”). Her dismissal was alleged to be such a detriment. The Employment Tribunal refused Ms Treadwell’s application to add her dismissal as a form of detriment under section 47B ERA due to the prohibition in section 47B(2) ERA. Ms Treadwell appealed to the EAT. In contrast to the EAT’s ruling in the Wicked Vision Appeal, the EAT held that it was bound to apply Osipov such that Ms Treadwell’s appeal was successful and that, as section 47B(2) ERA did not apply, she could amend her claim to include the dismissal as a form of detriment suffered under her section 47B ERA claim against Barton Turns Developments Limited. Mr Rice and Barton Turns Developments Limited both appealed to the Court of Appeal. Due to the conflicting EAT decisions on section 47B(2) ERA, the Court of Appeal heard both cases together. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the interpretation given to section 47B(2) ERA by an earlier court in Osipov and criticised certain aspects of its reasoning. However, they considered that they were bound by that decision. Accordingly, section 47B(2) ERA did not apply and Mr Rice and Ms Treadwell were therefore entitled to amend their claims to include a detriment claim based on their dismissal. Wicked Vision Limited and Barton Turns Developments Limited now appeal to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

13 January 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Linked cases

Appeal

Hearing dates and panels are subject to change

Hearing dates

Start date

21 May 2026

End date

21 May 2026

Back to top