The claimant, Mr Osipov, was employed by an Australian domiciled oil and gas exploration and production company, International Petroleum Ltd, from February 2011 until his summary dismissal in October 2014. The company had operational activities in the Republic of Niger. It ran into financial difficulties and reneged on fees in excess of $1m payable to the Government of Niger.

In June 2014 the claimant was appointed CEO of the company yet within days of his appointment he began to notice that certain individuals at senior management level were engaging in serious misconduct. They put undue pressure on him, inappropriately interfered with his duties and side-lined him from business negotiations. He was undermined, excluded from information relating to the situation in Niger, and ultimately, summarily dismissed without any form of procedure. The claimant had made a number of protected disclosures, in the form of emails and letters, expressing his concern about how business in Niger was being conducted. Days after his final disclosure he received an email dismissing him with immediate effect.

He subsequently brought claims before the Employment Tribunal alleging he had been subjected to detriments by the respondents on the basis that he had made protected disclosures contrary to s. 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996; that he was unfairly dismissed owing to the protected disclosures contrary to s.103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996; and that he was unfairly dismissed contrary to s.94 and s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He brought a further claim against two non-executive directors claiming they had personally subjected him to detriments owing to the disclosures.

The tribunal held International Petroleum Ltd and the non-executive directors concerned were jointly and severally liable for the losses flowing from the claimant’s dismissal, save for the basic award for which the company was solely liable. The respondents unsuccessfully challenged this decision before the EAT. The non-executive directors held personally liable argued the claim amounted to unfair dismissal under s 103A and therefore limited their liability to that of pre-dismissal detriments.

The EAT rejected their argument concluding s.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 created a ‘framework for individual liability of a fellow worker for detriments without restriction,’ and emphasised that whilst claims against fellow workers for whistleblowing detriments amounting to dismissal were unlikely to arise very often, they should not be excluded.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2017/0058_17_1907.html