Tamsin Sandiford acted for the Claimant in EAT case which will impact future whistleblowing detriment cases

Tamsin Sandiford acted for the Claimant in the EAT case of Wicked Vision v Rice

Judgment has been handed down by the EAT in Wicked Vision v Rice, in which Tamsin Sandiford provided written submissions on behalf of the Claimant. 

The Claimant alleges that he was dismissed for making protected disclosures relating to the furlough scheme. The appeal concerns whether he was entitled to add a section 47B ERA 1996 claim based on vicarious liability to his existing section 103A claim, the detriment being dismissal.

The Respondent appealed against the tribunal’s decision that the Claimant was entitled to bring such a claim, arguing that it was a precondition of such a claim against an employer that there be a parallel claim against a named employee. 

Bourne J held that a claimant who had a claim under section 103A could not choose to re-package it as a claim under section 47B. He held, therefore, that a section 47B claim relating to dismissal can only be brought where it cannot be brought as a section 103A claim. That depends on whether the dismissal was one to which Part X applied. 

He concluded that all that was necessary was to scrutinise the proposed claim against the employer and ask whether it is based on detriments amounting to dismissal within the meaning of Part X. if it is, a claimant can not bring a section 47B claim.

The decision is an important one for practitioners dealing with whistleblowing to note as it arguably contradicts Timis v Osipov and will impact how whistleblowing detriment cases are pleaded and defended.

A link to the Judgment can be found here: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2024/29.pdf