The Claimant asserted in her ET1 that she had been dismissed having by reason of her having made protected disclosures. An ET refused an amendment made some months after the claim was made which sought to add a claim of vicarious liability for detriment in the form of dismissal by the co-worker who dismissed her. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The EAT was bound by the decision of Timis and Sage v Osipov [2018] EWCA Civ 2321 and was not bound to follow the opposite conclusion reached by the EAT in Wicked Vision Ltd v Rice [2024] ICR 675.