Search

How can we help?

Icon

Whistleblowing detriment: Personal liability for individual decision makers

In Timis v Osipov, the Court of Appeal held that two directors were personally liable for detrimental treatment following protected disclosures even where the detriment in question amounted to a dismissal.

The claimant was dismissed by International Petroleum Limited (IPL) after making a number of protected disclosures on issues relating to poor corporate governance.  Two non-executive directors of IPL were found to have given specific advice/instructions to dismiss the claimant.

In addition to claims against the employer, the claimant successfully brought claims against the two directors personally on the basis that they too subjected him to detrimental treatment because of his protected disclosures (whistleblowing detriment).

Personal Liability

Changes to the law in 2013 extended the protection afforded to whistleblowers.  Prior to this date claims could only be made in relation to acts or omissions of the employer but, since 2013, an individual has had the right not to be subjected to any whistleblowing detriment by their employer, their colleagues or any agents of the employer. This case allowed the Court of Appeal to confirm that the 2013 amendment created a means of personal liability as well as a route to vicarious liability.

In Timis v Osipov, the Court of Appeal held that two directors were personally liable for detrimental treatment following protected disclosures even where the detriment in question amounted to a dismissal.

Detriment vs Dismissal

The law states that a claim for whistleblowing detriment cannot be brought where the detriment amounts to a dismissal (within the meaning of Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996).  Such claims should be pursued as automatic unfair dismissal claims instead.

The directors in this case argued that the detriment (namely giving the advice/instruction to dismiss) actually amounted to a dismissal and, as such, could not be pursued as a detriment claim.  The Court of Appeal agreed that the detriment amounted to a dismissal, however, it found that Part X was only concerned with claims against the employer and, as such, did not apply here where the claims were against individuals.  Therefore, the claims were not caught by the exclusion above and could be pursued as whistleblowing detriment claims.

This case will be welcomed by employees, especially those whose employers are insolvent (as was the case with IPL) and may see more decision makers being added to such claims.  Employers should ensure that they have a clear whistleblowing procedure and policy in place and provide guidance, particularly to those managing employees, on their obligations and best practice in this regard.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 15 September 2025
  • Immigration

Sharp rise in Sponsor Licence Revocations – What employers need to know

The Home Office has reported a record number of sponsor licence revocations over the past year, as part of its intensified efforts to crack down on abuse of the UK’s immigration system.

art
  • 10 September 2025
  • Commercial Real Estate

Trouble at the Table: The Challenges Facing the UK Hospitality Sector in the run up to Christmas 2025

The UK hospitality sector, long celebrated for its vibrancy and resilience, is facing a perfect storm of economic, operational, and structural challenges in 2025.

art
  • 09 September 2025
  • Commercial Real Estate

Le bail commercial anglais: quelques points essentiels à considérer

Typiquement, les baux commerciaux en Angleterre sont de court terme, d’une durée de 5 ou 10 ans, avec un loyer de marché et des ajustements du loyer périodiques en fonction de l’inflation ou d’autres facteurs. 

art
  • 09 September 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

The Failure to Prevent Fraud Offence – be prepared to avoid criminal liability

The failure to prevent fraud offence is a new corporate offence which has come into force on 1 September 2025.

art
  • 08 September 2025
  • Employment

Can employers still make changes to contracts after the Employment Rights Bill?

The short answer is yes but it will be much more difficult for employers following the introduction of the Employment Rights Bill because their ability to fairly dismiss employees who do not agree contractual changes is being restricted. 

art
  • 05 September 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

When Ignoring a DSAR Becomes a Criminal Offence

On 3 September 2025, Mr Jason Blake appeared at Beverley Magistrates Court and was fined for failing to respond to a data subject access request (DSAR).