Rice v Wicked Vision Goes to the Supreme Court: A Landmark Whistleblowing Case

On Tuesday 13th January 2026, we filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in Rice v Wicked Vision, the landmark whistleblowing case that could reshape how personal liability applies to managers and business owners in dismissal cases. This is the culmination of a journey through every level of the UK court system.

Why We Are Taking This Case to the Highest Court

In November 2025, the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment that was remarkable in its clarity. Three senior judges unanimously agreed with our interpretation of the whistleblowing legislation, finding that Parliament's words were "clear" and did not require creative interpretation. They stated explicitly that had they been free to depart from the earlier Timis v Osipov decision, they would have done so.

The Court went further, concluding their judgment with a direct invitation: "It 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."

We have accepted that invitation.

The Question Before the Supreme Court

The central issue is straightforward but has profound implications: can an employee who is dismissed for whistleblowing bring two separate claims—one against their employer for unfair dismissal, and another holding an individual manager personally liable for the dismissal as a "detriment"?

The legislation clearly states that when a detriment "amounts to dismissal", employees should pursue their claim under the unfair dismissal provisions. We argue that this creates a complete code: dismissals are dealt with as dismissals, not dressed up as detriments to enable claims against individuals who may be carrying out the instructions of the employer company.

The current interpretation, established in Osipov, allows both routes simultaneously. This has created a situation where managers and business owners face personal liability, often for substantial sums including injury to feelings awards, when making dismissal decisions on behalf of their companies.

Our team outside the Royal Courts of Justice

The Journey So Far

This case has now been considered at every level of the employment court system. At each stage, we have found judges who agree with our reading of the law, only for the precedent set by Osipov to prevail. The Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and now the Court of Appeal have all grappled with this tension between what the statute says and what previous courts have decided it means.

The Supreme Court is the only court with the authority to resolve this conflict definitively. For full background on the case and the Court of Appeal judgment, see our previous blog post.

What This Means for Employers and Managers

We took on this case because we were increasingly approached by individuals- employees, managers, and business owners, who were being held personally liable for dismissal decisions made in their professional capacity. The financial exposure can be significant, and the stress of facing personal litigation is considerable.

If the Supreme Court grants permission and ultimately agrees with our interpretation, it would provide clarity and fairness for everyone involved in workplace disputes. Dismissal claims would be brought against employers as Parliament intended, while the detriment provisions would protect workers from other forms of retaliation.

Next Steps

The Court of Appeal has already granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. We have filed the application, this has been accepted and will continue to work with leading counsel from Old Square Chambers on this matter and will provide updates as the case progresses.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What happens now?

We have already been successful in our application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. We have made the application to appeal, this has been accepted.

Q: How long might this take?

Supreme Court cases typically take 12 to 18 months from permission being granted to judgment. However, timings can vary depending on the Court's schedule and the complexity of the issues.

Q: Does this affect ongoing whistleblowing cases?

Until the Supreme Court rules, the current law as set out in Osipov remains binding. However, parties to ongoing disputes should be aware that the law in this area may change, which could be relevant to settlement discussions and case strategy. All current cases currently within the employment tribunal or employment appeal tribunal may wish to request a stay (pause) of their cases, pending the outcome of our Wicked Vision case.

Q: Where can I read more about the background to this case?

Our previous blog post provides comprehensive background on the case and the Court of Appeal judgment. The Court of Appeal hearing was also livestreamed and remains available to view on YouTube.

How We Can Help

Our involvement in Rice v Wicked Vision reflects our commitment to challenging legal interpretations that produce unfair outcomes. Whether you are an employer, a manager facing personal liability, or an employee navigating a whistleblowing dispute, we can provide strategic advice tailored to your circumstances.

For expert guidance on whistleblowing claims, unfair dismissal, or any employment law matter, contact our specialist team.