Jeffrey Jupp KC and Chris Canning successful in resisting challenge to whistleblowing protection in Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal on 14 November 2025 gave judgment in one of the most important employment whistleblowing cases of recent years: Rice v Wicked Vision / Barton Turns v Treadwell (Protect intervening) [2025] EWCA Civ 1466.

Jeffrey and Chris resisted a challenge by their client’s employer to the principle in Timis v Osipov [2018] EWCA Civ 2321 that an employee may bring a claim under s 47B ERA 1996 against their employer for the detriment of dismissal, where the dismissal was an act of a co-worker. The Court of Appeal heard argument over 14 and 15 October 2025, and concluded they were bound by Osipov to uphold that principle.

This means that employees who claim they were dismissed because they were whistleblowers, will continue to enjoy protection against suffering the detriment of dismissal under s 47B ERA 1996; as well as protection against automatic unfair dismissal under s 103A ERA 1996. On certain facts, these dual remedies are of benefit to employees, because s 47B imports a lower bar for causation, and opens the door to compensation for injury to feelings.

The Court reached this decision however because of the doctrine of precedent, they in fact disagreed with the analysis in Osipov. This Court’s interpretation of the statutory scheme is that liability for the detriment of dismissal ought in fact to be excluded by a proper reading of s 47B: “[t]he words are clear” (§ 73). Had they not been bound by Osipov, this Court would have reached a different conclusion. This therefore may not be the last word: “[i]t is plainly unsatisfactory that the construction of this legislation has now produced conflicting decisions at three levels of court, but that can only be resolved by the Supreme Court or by amendment to the legislation” (§ 101).

You can read the judgment here.

Jeffrey and Chris represented Gail Treadwell. They were instructed by Sarah Robinson of Premier Legal LLP.

Share: