Timis v Osipov
Co-workers who subject a whistleblower to the detriment of dismissal can be personally liable, and the employer can be vicariously liable for their acts.
Facts
Mr Osipov was the chief executive of an oil exploration company with interests in Africa. He made protected disclosures to the company's board, alleging irregularities in the company's activities. Two non executive directors, Mr Timis and Mr Sage, then instructed that he be dismissed. He claimed against the company for unfair dismissal and against the two directors personally for subjecting him to detriment, namely the dismissal. The company was insolvent, so the claim against the directors was important.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the directors were personally liable. Underhill LJ said that section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 allowed a worker to bring a claim against a co-worker who subjected him to a detriment for making a protected disclosure, and that the dismissal itself could be such a detriment, even though the worker could not bring a detriment claim against the employer in respect of the dismissal. The directors were jointly and severally liable for the losses flowing from the dismissal.
Related cases on whistleblowing, working time and pay
- British Airways plc v Williams [2012] UKSC 43, [2012] ICR 1375
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2017] EWCA Civ 979, [2018] ICR 731
- Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2023] UKSC 33
- Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras v Deutsche Bank SAE Case C-55/18, EU:C:2019:402
- Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras v Tyco Integrated Security SL Case C-266/14, EU:C:2015:578
- Gilham v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 44, [2019] 1 WLR 5905
- Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] EWCA Civ 1436, [2018] ICR 1850
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
