Is "dismissal" just another "detriment"? It sounds like a legal seminar question, but the answer determines whether a claimant can recover injury to feelings damages and bypass the strict "principal reason" test for unfair dismissal.

In November 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd, causing a stir in the employment law world. The headline? They explicitly stated they wanted to change the law but couldn't.

The Background: Timis v Osipov

To understand Rice, we have to look back at the 2018 blockbuster, Timis v Osipov. This case established that individual directors (like Mr. Timis) could be personally liable for whistleblowing detriment, even if that detriment was dismissal.

Crucially, it also meant that the employer could be vicariously liable for that individual’s decision. This opened a backdoor: claimants could sue for "detriment" (under s.47B ERA 1996) for their dismissal, rather than just "unfair dismissal" (under s.103A).

Why do claimants love this?

  • Injury to Feelings: Available in detriment claims, but not unfair dismissal.
  • Burden of Proof: A detriment only needs to be a "material influence" on the decision, whereas unfair dismissal requires it to be the "principal reason."

The New Case: Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd

Mr. Rice, a sales director, claimed he was dismissed for blowing the whistle on furlough fraud. He brought purely statutory claims against his employer, Wicked Vision Ltd.

The key legal question was: Can you bring a detriment claim against your employer for dismissal, or does the s.47B(2) exclusion block it?

The Court of Appeal ruled that yes, you can. They held they were bound by the Osipov precedent. This means the "backdoor" is still wide open. Claimants can continue to bring dual claims—one for unfair dismissal, and one for the "detriment" of dismissal—to maximize their leverage and potential damages.

The "Wicked" Twist

Here is the interesting part: The Court of Appeal Judges said that if they weren't bound by Osipov, they would have decided differently. They suggested that the legislation was intended to separate the two regimes.

They have effectively invited the Supreme Court to fix it. But until that happens, Osipov remains the law of the land.

Practical Takeaways

  1. Individual Liability: Managers and Directors remain personally at risk for whistleblowing dismissals.
  2. Dual Claims: Expect claimants to continue pleading both s.103A (Unfair Dismissal) and s.47B (Detriment) to target injury to feelings awards.
  3. Watch This Space: This issue is ripe for a Supreme Court appeal. The "unsatisfactory" conflict between the statutes cannot last forever.

For now, the Wicked judgment is a win for whistleblowers—but perhaps not the final word.