The Claimant was employed by the Respondent until he resigned, and he claimed that he had made a number of protected disclosures and, in consequence, had suffered numerous detriments. The ET considered all of the alleged detriments and concluded that none of them related to either of the two disclosures that it had found to be qualifying protected disclosures, so the whistleblowing claim failed. The Claimant appealed on a number of grounds which were allowed to proceed to a Full Hearing.

The EAT held that there had been no error of law or perversity in the ET's decision.