At a preliminary hearing over the phone, the ET struck out the Claimant's claims, including that he had been subject to discrimination because of race and/or religion and that he had been subject to detriment done on the ground that he had made protected disclosures. This is despite the fact the first Respondent had not applied for a strike out of his claims. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal in relation to the discrimination claim but dismissed the appeal relating to protected disclosures. There clearly were significant issues of fact in dispute between the parties. The EJ failed to take the claimant’s case at its highest and erred in the circumstances of this case in expecting the Claimant to demonstrate, prior to disclosure, “evidence of a causal link” between his protected characteristics and the detriment. The EJ failed to heed the warning in Malik about expecting a litigant in person to explain his case under the pressure of questioning, without adequately considering the pleaded case, including the attempts by the Claimant to provide additional information.