(1) Rice (appellant) v Wicked Vision Ltd (respondent) скачать в хорошем качестве

(1) Rice (appellant) v Wicked Vision Ltd (respondent)

Tuesday 14 – Wednesday 15 October 2025 (1) Rice (appellant) v Wicked Vision Ltd (respondent) (2) Barton Turns Developments Ltd (appellant) v Treadwell (respondent) Before Lord Justice Peter Jackson Lord Justice Coulson Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing (1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 23 February 2024, the Claimant (C) appeals against the order made by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), Bourne J, sealed on 13 March 2024 allowing the appeal by Wicked Vision Ltd. Bourne J overturned the decision of the Employment Tribunal, which allowed C to amend his claim to include a detriment under s 47B(1A) ERA 1996, namely a complaint that the owner of the Respondent subjected C to the detriment of dismissal for which R is liable. The EAT held that C was not required to pursue a concurrent claim against the owner. C’s alleged protected disclosures concerned alleged breaches of the coronavirus job retention scheme. C alleged that employees were required to work despite being placed on furlough. (2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 28 August 2024, Barton Turns Developments Ltd (the Respondent in the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) appeals against the order made by HHJ Barkelm sealed on 8 August 2024 allowing the Claimant’s appeal and dismissing the Respondent’s cross appeal. The C asserted that she had been dismissed for making protected disclosures. The ET refused an amendment made some months after the claim was made, seeking to add a claim of vicarious liability for detriment in the form of dismissal by the co-worker who dismissed her.