A case at the Court of Appeal is due to examine a critical aspect of whistleblowing law that concerns the statutory routes to liability and compensation available to a whistleblowing employee when they have been dismissed and victimised.
The cases of Barton Turns Developments Limited v Treadwell (“Treadwell”) and Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd [2024] EAT 29 (“Wicked Vision”) have been joined because both are grappling with the same technical point of law. This is whether an employee can bring both a detriment claim against a co-worker who made the decision to terminate their employment – as well as bringing a dismissal claim against the employer itself. There are important legal differences between these two types of statutory claim and employees should not be prevented from accessing both options.
Following the case of Timis and Sage v Osipov (Protect Intervening) [2019] ICR 655, employees are able to run these two claims simultaneously ensuring that they receive effective protection in their workplace. This precedent is now under threat, and it is that which the Court of Appeal cases of Treadwell and Wicked Vision will consider.
The whistleblowing charity Protect, represented by Schona Jolly KC and Dee Masters from Cloisters Chambers and solicitors CM Murray, is intervening. Protect will argue that Osipov was right because an employee whistleblower should be able to run both claims ensuring they are effectively protected. This is crucial because the whistleblowing provisions safeguard the public by ensuring those closest to potential wrongdoing are able to safely report it, and in turn this protects the public interest.
Sybille Raphael, Joint Chief Executive at Protect said:
Notes to Editors:
For more information, and to arrange an interview, please contact:
press@protect-advice.org.uk
The case is scheduled to be heard at the Court of Appeal on Tuesday 14 and Wednesday 15 October 2025.
Background to the Osipov case:
A vital part of whistleblowing protection has been the decision in the case Timis and Sage v Osipov (Protect intervening) [2019] ICR 655 (“Osipov”). In this case the claimant was unable to bring an effective claim directly against his employer because the company he worked for became insolvent. He therefore had no remedy unless he pursued the individual directors concerned. Mr Osipov was successful in his claim against two directors who played a role in their unfair dismissal. The case ensured that employee claimants could hold senior managers and directors to account.
The employer had become insolvent, meaning it would have been unable to pay any financial award to Mr Osipov if he had succeeded at the Employment Tribunal. Instead, Mr Osipov successfully brought detriment claims against each director for the decision to dismiss him. The advantages of a twin-track claim are two-fold. Firstly, the causation test is lower for detriment claims: for a dismissal claim the whistleblowing must have been the main or sole reason for the dismissal whereas for a detriment claim, the whistleblowing must have had a more than trivial influence on the victimisation. Secondly, if your employer is insolvent, it means you may still be able to seek compensation from solvent individuals.