The principal issue on this appeal is whether it was open to the ET to award the Claimant compensation against the Appellants, as individuals, for the losses occasioned by his whistleblowing dismissal. It was their case that such compensation could only be awarded by way of compensation for unfair dismissal and thus only against the company (IPL) since only the employer can be liable for unfair dismissal.

The court dismissed the appeal holding:

(1) It is open to an employee to bring a claim under section 47B (1A) against an individual co-worker for subjecting him or her to the detriment of dismissal, i.e. for being a party to the decision to dismiss; and to bring a claim of vicarious liability for that act against the employer under section 47B (1B).  All that section 47B (2) excludes is a claim against the employer in respect of its own act of dismissal.

(2) As regards a claim based on a distinct prior detrimental act done by a co-worker which results in the claimant's dismissal, section 47B (2) does not preclude recovery in respect of losses flowing from the dismissal, though the usual rules about remoteness and the quantification of such losses will apply.