The Claimant lost her claims of sexual harassment and constructive dismissal at the ET, the ET preferring the evidence of the second and third Respondents and made their findings of fact accordingly. The Claimant appealed, contending that the ET adopted an inflexible rule to prefer the evidence of the second and third Respondents to that of the Claimant on all disputed issues. The Respondents asserted that on a fair reading of the judgment the ET did not adopt such an inflexible rule and reached findings of fact that were open to it.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET clearly took account of the evidence of the Claimant, otherwise there would have been no point in it stating that it preferred the evidence of the Respondents to that of the Claimant.