The Court of Appeal finds that an employer can be vicariously liable for a whistleblowing detriment even if the detriment complained of is dismissal.
That reflects an earlier Court of Appeal decision.
However, the Court would have reached a different decision had it not been bound by the previous case.
The UK's whistleblowing legislation protects employees from being dismissed or subjected to a detriment by their employer because they have blown the whistle. An employer can also be vicariously liable if one employee subjects another to a detriment because they have blown the whistle.
There's been an ongoing debate about whether an employer can be vicariously liable where the detriment in question is dismissal. In Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd and Barton Turns Developments Ltd v Treadwell, the Court of Appeal decided that it can. That reflects an earlier decision, Timis v Osipov. However, the Court would have reached a different decision in these cases if it had been free to do so. It's possible that they will now go to the Supreme Court.
The decisions in Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd and Barton Turns Developments Ltd v Treadwell (“Wicked Vision”) are highly technical but nonetheless important for employers. They consider whether an employer can be vicariously liable for the acts of an employee in a whistleblowing detriment claim if the detriment in question is dismissal.
Arguing that a dismissal is a whistleblowing detriment has two advantages for employees. The threshold to...
Claims that Brigitte Macron is a transgender woman first emerged online in 2021 and have since gone viral. “Two billion people have been exposed to this story in French and 2.5 billion in English,...