Adam Solomon KC appeared in the UK Supreme Court on Thursday 21 May 2026, as the court sat in Glasgow for the first time.
Adam, leading Christopher Milsom of Cloisters Chambers and Tamsin Sandiford of St Philips Chambers, acted for Mr Rice in Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd, which was conjoined with Treadwell v Barton Turns Developments Ltd.
Mr Rice is a whistleblower who was dismissed after he objected to Wicked Vision’s internal practices in connection with the COVID-19 furlough program. Mr Rice brought claims against Wicked Vision for unfair dismissal, including automatically unfair dismissal pursuant to s.103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. By way of an application to amend, Mr Rice sought to bring an additional claim for “dismissal detriment” under s.47B(2) ERA 1996 against the co-worker who dismissed him.
The primary issue for the Supreme Court to decide was whether section 47B(2) of the ERA 1996 prevents an employee from bringing a claim under section 47B against a co-worker and/or their employer for being subjected to detriment where that detriment amounts to a dismissal.
Section 47B(2) states:
This section does not apply where –
a) the worker is an employee, and
b) the detriment in question amounts to dismissal (within the meaning of Part X).
The Appellants’ case was that the ERA 1996 provides “one route” to a remedy. Accordingly, per s.47B(2), if the detriment suffered by an employee is dismissal the employee must proceed against the employer under Part X. No claim can be brought against the co-worker.
Adam argued for the Respondents that s.47B(2) only operates to exclude from s.47B claims which fall under Part X ERA 1996. That means claims against the employer for the employer’s own act of dismissing the employee where the protected disclosure is the sole or principal reason for the dismissal. Section 47B(2) does not, however, prevent a claim by an employee against a co-worker under s.47B(1A) or an employer vicariously under s.47B(1B) in respect of the detriment of dismissal.
The s.47B provisions, brought in by 2013 amendments to the ERA, are unique in respect of the fact that they impose personal liability on co-workers and agents who victimise whistleblowers, and vicarious liability on the employer for that wrongdoing. The Appellants’ position, Adam argued, overlooks this crucial aspect of the regime.
This decision will have significant practical consequences for the protection of whistleblowers. If the Appellants’ position is accepted:
We await the decision of the Supreme Court.
Written by Oliver Bacon, Pupil at Littleton Chambers.
