The Claimant had made various claims against the Respondent. An RRO was put in place which the Claimant applied to have revoked. The ET refused the application on the basis that the only material change in circumstances that the Claimant asserted was a reduction in the risk from animal rights activists. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET erred in law in not considering the Claimant’s assertion that there was an increased need for him to be able to exercise freedom of expression and increased public interest in him being able to challenge what he believed to be a failure to comply with relevant regulations, and what he asserted was a cover-up.