Rice v Wicked Vision: Standing Up for Fairness in Employment Law

We recently acted in the Wicked Vision case at the Court of Appeal in a case challenging how whistleblowing law applies to employers and individual managers. The judgment has now been handed down, and the decision contains significant observations about the fairness of the current legal framework.

Our team outside the Royal Courts of Justice

Understanding the Rice v Wicked Vision Case

The case centred on a fundamental question in employment law: 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")?

In employment law, a "detriment" is any disadvantage or harm an employee suffers at work. This could include being denied a promotion, having shifts reduced, being subjected to disciplinary action, or facing hostility from colleagues. Essentially, it's any treatment that puts the employee at a disadvantage because they've blown the whistle. The law protects workers from suffering such detriments when they've made protected disclosures about wrongdoing.

Mr Rice, who worked as Head of Sales at Wicked Vision Ltd, alleged he was dismissed after making protected disclosures about coronavirus furlough scheme breaches. He sought to bring claims not only against the company but also to hold the company owner personally liable for the dismissal.

Why We Brought This Case

We were increasingly being approached by employees who were being sued as individuals in their personal capacity for carrying out the instructions of their employers. Our firm took on this case because we believed the existing legal interpretation required clarification and could lead to unfairness. Following a 2019 Court of Appeal decision (Timis v Osipov), individual employees, managers and business owners were becoming personally liable for dismissal decisions, potentially exposing them to substantial financial claims even when acting on behalf of the company.

We argued that this couldn't be what Parliament intended when it created separate regimes for unfair dismissal claims and whistleblowing detriment claims. The law clearly states that when a detriment "amounts to dismissal", employees should pursue their claim under the unfair dismissal provisions, not through the detriment route that allows personal liability.

What the Court of Appeal Decided

The three judges (Lord Justice Peter Jackson, Lord Justice Coulson, and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing) unanimously agreed with our interpretation of the law. They said Parliament's words were "clear" and did not need creative interpretation. They found that when an employee's complaint is about their dismissal, they cannot bring it as a detriment claim under the legislation we were examining.

However, the Court felt bound by the earlier Osipov decision. As Lady Justice Laing stated in the judgment: "Had we been free to depart from that decision, which we are not, we would have done so, as we respectfully disagree with its interpretation of the legislation."

The Court noted that our construction was "based on a straightforward reading of the words" and that they could not accept the approach in Osipov which suggested Parliament "had not thought things through" or that the law needed remedial interpretation.

The full judgement can be found here.

A Clear Invitation for Further Appeal

Significantly, the Court concluded their judgment by stating: "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."

This is a clear signal that the legal position remains unsettled and that the Supreme Court may need to provide definitive guidance on this important issue affecting both employers and employees across the UK.

The Court of Appeal Hearing

In October 2025, we presented Wicked Vision's case alongside the joined case of Barton Turns Developments v Treadwell. The whistleblowing charity Protect also intervened due to the importance of the clarification required.

Reflecting the significance of the legal issues at stake, the Court of Appeal livestreamed the hearing, which remains available to view. This is a step reserved for cases of substantial public importance and legal interest.

Leading Legal Minds at the Court of Appeal

This case attracted some of the most distinguished figures in employment law. We instructed Nadia Motraghi KC and Rad Kohanzad of Old Square Chambers, working with Amit Patel of Atkinson Rose LLP.

The opposing side was represented by Adam Solomon KC and Christopher Milsom of Littleton Chambers and Cloisters respectively. Jeffrey Jupp KC represented Barton Turns Developments, while the intervener, Protect, instructed Schona Jolly KC, all highly respected practitioners in whistleblowing and employment rights.

The calibre of counsel involved reflects the significance of the legal issues at stake. These lawyers involved represent the forefront of employment law practice, regularly appearing in the highest courts and shaping the development of workplace rights across the UK.

What Makes Whistleblowing Claims Complex

Whistleblowing law involves two distinct types of claims, each with different thresholds:

Automatic unfair dismissal claims require proving that whistleblowing was the sole or principal reason for dismissal: a higher bar to clear.

Detriment claims have a lower threshold, requiring only that the whistleblowing had "more than a trivial influence" on the employer's treatment of the employee.

Additionally, detriment claims allow for compensation for injury to feelings, while standard dismissal claims do not. This means individuals can face substantially higher personal liability than the company they work for.

Why This Case Matters: Protecting Business Owners and Managers

This appeal attracted significant attention because it challenged the 2019 Court of Appeal decision in Timis v Osipov. That case allowed whistleblowers to pursue both avenues simultaneously, which can be particularly important when employers become insolvent.

However, Osipov was decided by the President of the Employment Tribunals, and the current President has also indicated agreement with that approach. The Osipov decision has created a situation where individual managers and business owners face personal liability for dismissal decisions, even when those decisions are made in their capacity as representatives of the company.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged our concerns, noting it would be "odd if Parliament had barred a claim against an employer for a detriment 'which amounts to dismissal' but allowed such a claim to be made" against individuals. They agreed that there is no "relevant legal distinction" between a dismissal "by the employer" and a dismissal "by a co-worker" when that co-worker is acting for the company.

Our Experience in Complex Employment Law

We regularly represent and protect our clients in cases that may shape the law, handling even the most challenging employment law matters with clarity and precision.

Our willingness to challenge established precedent in cases like Rice v Wicked Vision demonstrates our commitment to pursuing fairness in employment law, even when that means taking on difficult appeals.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is a protected disclosure in whistleblowing law?

A protected disclosure is when a worker reveals information about wrongdoing in the workplace (such as criminal activity, health and safety dangers, or breaches of legal obligations) that they reasonably believe to be true and in the public interest.

Q: Why would someone bring two claims instead of one?

The dual claim approach offers strategic advantages: detriment claims have a lower causation threshold (making them potentially easier to prove) and allow compensation for emotional distress. Individual managers can also be held personally liable.

Q: What did the Court of Appeal decide?

The Court agreed with our interpretation that the legislation prevents employees from bringing dismissal cases as detriment claims. However, they felt bound by the earlier Osipov precedent. Crucially, they stated that if they were free to depart from Osipov, they would have done so, as they "respectfully disagree with its interpretation of the legislation."

Q: Could this case go to the Supreme Court?

Yes. The Court of Appeal specifically noted that the conflicting decisions at three levels of court can "only be resolved by the Supreme Court or by amendment to the legislation." This is a strong indication that a further appeal may be appropriate.

Q: How does this case affect employers and managers?

Currently, the Osipov interpretation means that employers and individual managers can face dual liability for whistleblowing dismissals. Individual decision makers can be held personally liable even when acting on behalf of their company. This has significant implications for personal financial risk, insurance considerations, and the exposure of business owners and senior managers.

Q: Why did Atkinson Rose take on this case?

We were increasingly being approached by employees who were being sued as individuals in their personal capacity for carrying out the instructions of their employers. We  believed it could be unfair that individual employees were becoming personally liable for dismissal decisions made on behalf of their companies. The legislation clearly distinguishes between dismissal claims and detriment claims, and we felt the law was being misinterpreted in a way that exposed individuals to disproportionate personal liability.

Q: How can your firm help with whistleblowing disputes?

We provide strategic advice to both employers and employees on navigating these complex legal issues. Our involvement in landmark cases like Rice v Wicked Vision reflects our willingness to challenge established legal interpretations when we believe they produce unfair outcomes. We bring both technical expertise and a principled approach to employment law.

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