G Treadwell v Barton Turns Development Ltd

G Treadwell v Barton Turns Development Ltd

The Employment Appeal Tribunal was bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Osipov, which permits a claim for vicarious liability for detriment in the form of dismissal by a co-worker. The Employment Judge erred in law by refusing the amendment on the basis that section 47B(2) ERA 1996 excluded such a claim. The permitted amendments were correctly treated as re-labelling and not substantial changes.

Parties
Appellant: Miss G Treadwell; Respondent: Barton Turns Development Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosures, Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Vicarious Liability, Amendment of Pleadings, Detriment, Case Management
Employment Law Protected Disclosures Automatic Unfair Dismissal Vicarious Liability Amendment of Pleadings Detriment Case Management

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss G Treadwell

Appellant

Barton Turns Development Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing an amendment to plead vicarious liability for detriment in the form of dismissal by a co-worker under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the permitted amendments were a mere re-labelling or a substantial change to the pleadings

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Appeal Tribunal was bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Osipov, which permits a claim for vicarious liability for detriment in the form of dismissal by a co-worker. The Employment Judge erred in law by refusing the amendment on the basis that section 47B(2) ERA 1996 excluded such a claim. The permitted amendments were correctly treated as re-labelling and not substantial changes.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The proposed amendment to paragraph 13 is allowed.
  • The cross-appeal is dismissed.