Rice v Wicked Vision Limited; Barton Turns Developments Limited v Treadwell

Why It Matters

The ruling confines whistleblower dismissal claims to Part 10, reshaping litigation strategy and reducing potential injury‑to‑feelings payouts for employers.

Key Takeaways

• Section 47B2 bars whistleblower dismissal claims under Part 5.
• Employees must pursue dismissal claims exclusively via Part 10.
• Part 5 offers lower causation test and injury‑to‑feelings damages.
• Part 10 provides basic award, reinstatement, and longer‑term remedies.
• Court upheld statutory distinction between Part 5 detriment and Part 10 unfair dismissal.

Summary

The Court of Appeal heard two linked appeals – Rice v Wicked Vision Limited and Barton Turns Developments Ltd v Treadwell – focusing on whether whistleblowers can bring a dismissal claim under Part 5 (detriment) of the Employment Rights Act as well as under Part 10 (unfair dismissal). Both appellants argued that section 47B2’s ouster provision should prevent Part 5 claims, while the respondents contended that the lower‑threshold Part 5 route remained available.

The judges examined the plain wording of section 47B2, which expressly disapplies the detriment provisions when the alleged detriment amounts to a dismissal covered by Part 10. They highlighted the divergent causation tests: Part 10 requires the protected disclosure to be the principal reason for dismissal, whereas Part 5 only needs the disclosure to have materially influenced the treatment. This distinction creates a strategic incentive for claimants to prefer Part 5, which also allows injury‑to‑feelings awards, but the court held the statutory text overrides that preference.

The judgment referenced precedent such as Fessett and Ozipov, noting that Parliament deliberately kept the two regimes separate. Protect, the whistleblowing charity, intervened to underscore the public‑interest dimension. The court affirmed that employees must use the Part 10 pathway, while workers who are not employees may still rely on Part 5, but the ouster provision remains absolute for dismissals.

The decision narrows the legal avenues for whistleblower dismissal claims, compelling claimants to meet the higher causation threshold of Part 10 and limiting access to injury‑to‑feelings damages. Employers gain clarity on exposure, but must still manage the risk of unfair‑dismissal awards and potential reinstatement orders.

Original Description

Rice (Respondent) v Wicked Vision Limited (Appellant)

Case ID: UKSC/2026/0005

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2026-0005.html

Barton Turns Developments Limited (Appellant) v Treadwell (Respondent)

Case ID: UKSC/2026/0008

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2026-0008.html

Hearing date: 21 May 2026.

Hearing location: City Chambers, Glasgow.

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 ('WVL'), a company owned by Mr Strang, from December 2019 until his dismissal in February 2021. The stated ground for his dismissal was redundancy. Mr Rice commenced proceedings against WVL and alleged that Mr Strang 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.

WVL appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the “EAT”) arguing that bringing a claim against the relevant co-worker should have been a pre-condition to Mr Rice’s claim against WVL. 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 ('BTD'). 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 BTD.

Mr Rice and BTD 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. WVL and BTD now appeal to the Supreme Court.