Landmark tribunal case elevated to Supreme Court for definitive ruling on whistleblowing law

MANCHESTER, England, Jan. 15, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Senior barristers from Old Square Chambers have formally filed the Notice of Appeal at the Supreme Court in the case of Rice v Wicked Vision^[1]. This action, funded by the global HR and Employment Law company, Peninsula, follows the successful grant of Permission to Appeal, a move that confirms the Supreme Court's recognition of the case as one of general public importance for the UK's labour market.

The appeal focuses on whistleblowing, an area of law that the Court of Appeal previously described as 'conflicting' and 'unsatisfactory'. By filing on behalf of Wicked Vision today, Old Square Chambers and Peninsula enter the final stage of a legal journey to provide millions of UK employers with a clear framework for worker rights and protections around whistleblowing.

What is being tested?

The Supreme Court will be asked to resolve a key legal question about UK whistleblowing law: whether an employee who alleges they were dismissed for making a protected disclosure can pursue a "detriment" claim under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 where the detriment alleged is the dismissal itself, in addition to an automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A. The underlying uncertainty arises because section 47B(2) appears to exclude detriment claims that "amount to dismissal", yet past precedent (notably Timis v Osipov) has allowed such detriment-of-dismissal claims against co-workers, and thus vicariously liable employers, in tandem with automatic unfair dismissal claims — and the Court of Appeal felt bound by that precedent even while expressing doubt about its correctness. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court has now been granted to clarify this issue.

Rad Kohanzad, barrister at Old Square Chambers says, "The employment law world has been waiting for some time for these arguments to be aired before the highest court in the land and we are finally there."

Rob McKellar, legal services director at Peninsula, says, "The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case was the first hurdle; this filing is the starting gun for the final resolution. For too long, UK businesses have been forced to navigate a legal landscape that is contradictory and confusing.

"At Peninsula we represent the voice of employers who are calling for certainty. This is not just a technical dispute; it is a mission to ensure that the law provides a stable foundation for the future of work in Britain. As the law currently stands, employees essentially have two bites at the same cherry when bringing an unfair dismissal citing detriment. The bar is lower, reward potentially higher and there is a distinct lack of clarity. We hope to see this case align the judicial interpretation of the law with how Parliament clearly intended it to be construed."

With the filing of the Notice of Appeal, the Supreme Court will now move to list a date for late 2026, where a panel of five or seven Justices will deliver the final word on this critical area of law.

Background on the case

Mr Rice was employed as Head of UK Sales at Wicked Vision. In February 2021 he was dismissed, which he claimed was as a result of having made protected whistleblowing disclosures. He brought an automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, then sought to amend it to add a detriment claim under section 47B alleging that the dismissal itself was a detriment inflicted by a co-worker (the owner), for which his employer would be vicariously liable. The Employment Tribunal initially allowed the amendment, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed. The case, joined with Barton Turns v Treadwell, was then heard by the Court of Appeal which, although critical of the reasoning, felt bound by previous precedent and upheld the availability of detriment-of-dismissal claims for now, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

February 2021: Mr Rice is dismissed by Wicked Vision and later brings a claim alleging automatic unfair dismissal due to protected disclosures.
2024: Employment Tribunal permits Mr Rice to amend his claim to add a detriment claim under s.47B. The employer appeals. Peninsula acted in the Tribunal matter and the subsequent appeal
March 2024: Employment Appeal Tribunal overturns the ET's decision. Peninsula acted, successfully, for the appellant
Early 2025: The Wicked Vision and Barton Turns cases are consolidated and progress through litigation (with intervenor Protect involved). Protect are a pro-employee whistleblowing charity
May 2025: Wicked Vision goes into administration
October 2025: Liquidator appointed
November 2025: Court of Appeal hands down its judgment in Rice v Wicked Vision (and Barton Turns), holding that detriment-of-dismissal claims remain available under existing precedent but noting the legal tension. Court of Appeal essentially accepts that the law as it stands is incorrect but that it does not have the jurisdiction to change it and only the Supreme Court can do so.
December 2025: Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is granted, setting the stage for a final authoritative decision on this point of whistleblowing law.

About Peninsula 
Peninsula protects employers across the globe with employment law, HR, and health & safety services. From small start-ups to well-known brands, we support tens of thousands of businesses with HR and health & safety. Business owners reduce their legal risk and save time with our expert advice, documentation, and more. 
www.peninsulagroupglobal.com  

About Old Square Chambers
Old Square Chambers is one of the leading employment law chambers, offering specialist counsel in all areas of employment law whose barristers have appeared in some of the most significant and defining employment cases of the last 25 years.
Advocacy Barristers Chambers in Bristol & London - Old Square Chambers

[1] [2025] EWCA Civ 1466