(1)A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a protected disclosure.
(1A)
A worker (“W”) has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, done—
(a)by another worker of W's employer in the course of that other worker's employment, or
(b)by an agent of W's employer with the employer's authority,
on the ground that W has made a protected disclosure.
(1B)Where a worker is subjected to detriment by anything done as mentioned in subsection (1A), that thing is treated as also done by the worker's employer.
(1C)For the purposes of subsection (1B), it is immaterial whether the thing is done with the knowledge or approval of the worker's employer.
(1D)In proceedings against W's employer in respect of anything alleged to have been done as mentioned in subsection (1A)(a), it is a defence for the employer to show that the employer took all reasonable steps to prevent the other worker—
(a)from doing that thing, or
(b)from doing anything of that description.
(1E)A worker or agent of W's employer is not liable by reason of subsection (1A) for doing something that subjects W to detriment if—
(a)the worker or agent does that thing in reliance on a statement by the employer that doing it does not contravene this Act, and
(b)it is reasonable for the worker or agent to rely on the statement.
But this does not prevent the employer from being liable by reason of subsection (1B).
(2) . . . This section does not apply where—
(a)the worker is an employee, and
(b)the detriment in question amounts to dismissal (within the meaning of Part X ).
(3)
For the purposes of this section, and of sections 48 and 49 so far as relating to this section, “worker”, “worker’s contract”, “employment” and “employer” have the extended meaning given by section 43K.
Cases considering section 47B 180
[2019] UKSC 55 · 27 November 2019Limits
Acts of the line manager and human-resources officer were attributed directly to the employer and constituted detriments imposed because of protected disclosures. That attribution did not restrict the separate attribution exercise under section 103 A (see paras [55]–[56]).
These provisions treat specified detrimental acts by another worker as the employer’s acts, subject to a limited defence, and impose vicarious liability. They did not govern the detriments found here, which attracted direct liability under subsection (1) (see paras [55]–[56]).
The exclusion applies where an employee’s detriment amounts to dismissal. It confirms that whistleblowers are not confined to detriment remedies, because dismissal protection and its Part X remedies remain available (see paras [28]; [58]–[59]).
[2025] EWCA Civ 1547 · 1 December 2025Interprets
Interprets “any act” and “detriment” broadly. Commencing legal or arbitral proceedings can constitute a detriment where it is done on the ground that the worker made a protected disclosure, subject to determination of the statutory elements (see paras [9]-[12]; [47]-[56]).
[2025] EWCA Civ 1466 · 14 November 2025Interprets
The court construed section 47B as a whole. It held that the preferred reading of subsection (2) applied to the amended section, although the binding interpretation in Osipov controlled the appeals. (see paras [67]-[73]; [85]-[91])
The court treated the original employer-liability route in subsection (1) as part of the same statutory scheme as the later co-worker and agency provisions. (see paras [39]; [73])
Applying Osipov, the court held that subsection (1A) could support an employee’s claim against a co-worker for the detriment of dismissal. The court was bound to give effect to that interpretation in the appeals. (see paras [87]-[93])
The court held that the interpretation in Osipov extended to subsection (1B), so an employee could add a vicarious-liability claim against the employer based on a co-worker’s responsibility for dismissal without joining the co-worker. (see paras [89]-[91])
On its preferred construction, the court held that subsection (2) applies to the whole of section 47B and excludes an employee’s Part V claim where the detriment is substantively the employer’s dismissal and the loss claimed is consequential on it. The court nevertheless held itself bound by Osipov. (see paras [66]-[73]; [78]-[91])
The court treated the requirement that the worker be an employee as part of the statutory condition for the Part V exclusion. (see paras [66]; [68]-[70])
The court treated the reference to detriment amounting to dismissal within Part X as a question of substance rather than form, including whether the complaint concerns dismissal by the employer. (see paras [66]; [68]-[77])
The court noted that subsection (3) gives worker, worker’s contract, employment and employer their extended meanings under section 43K for section 47B proceedings. (see paras [37]-[39])
160 more judgments, and what each says about section 47B, are in the
case-law panel in the full Act.