The cases of Barton Turns Developments Limited v Treadwell and Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd [2024] EAT 29 have been joined because both deal with the same point of law: whether an employee can bring both a detriment claim against a co-worker who made the decision to terminate their employment, as well as a dismissal claim against the employer itself.

Following the case of Timis and Sage v Osipov (Protect intervening) [2019] ICR 655, employees are able to run these two claims simultaneously ensuring that they receive effective protection in their workplace. This precedent is now under threat, and it is that which the Court of Appeal cases of Treadwell and Wicked Vision will consider.

The whistleblowing charity Protect, represented by Schona Jolly KC and Dee Masters from Cloisters Chambers and solicitors CM Murray, is intervening. Protect will argue that Osipov was right because an employee whistleblower should be able to run both claims ensuring they are effectively protected. This is crucial because the whistleblowing provisions safeguard the public by ensuring those closest to potential wrongdoing are able to safely report it, and in turn this protects the public interest.

Sybille Raphael, joint chief executive at Protect, said: “This case is significant in its power to impact whistleblowing protection. Whistleblowers who are dismissed could be blocked from bringing claims against their former colleagues and managers – creating an anomaly between the rights of employees and ‘workers’ as designated in law in the workplace. Whistleblowing claims are complex and difficult enough to win – the law needs to be more consistent, and easier to access rather than less.

“Whistleblowing continues to be one of the most perilous acts anyone can do in the course of their career. It can cause immeasurable emotional impact and lead to financial ruin. The law needs to provide a viable and straightforward route for individuals to seek redress when they have experienced poor treatment after blowing the whistle at work.”