On 14 November 2025 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the joined appeals of Rice v Wicked Vision (Protect intervening) and Barton Turns v Treadwell [2025] EWCA Civ 1466.
Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing, Lord Justice Peter Jackson and Lord Justice Coulson determined that the Court was bound by the decision in Timis v Osipov [2019] ICR 655, and, consequentially, that an employee can bring a dismissal detriment claim against their employer under s.47B ERA 1996.
Laing LJ said at paragraph 4 that: “[h]ad we been free to depart from that decision [Osipov], which we are not, we would have done so, as we respectfully disagree with its interpretation of the legislation.” The Court set out its own interpretation of the relevant provisions in the ERA 1996, and why it disagrees with Osipov, at paragraphs 66 to 86 of the judgment.
The final paragraph of the judgment concludes:
“The appeal in Wicked Vision is allowed and the appeal in Barton Turns is dismissed. 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.”
Read the judgment here.
Nadia Motraghi KC, Rad Kohanzad and Daisy van den Berg represented Wicked Vision and were instructed by Amit Patel of Atkinson Rose.
