The Claimant claimed that he had made a protected disclosure and he was subjected to detriments as a result of it, In the alternative, he claimed the complaint to the Respondent was a protected act and the failure to investigate was a detriment resulting from it contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, and the conduct of his manager and the failure of the Respondent to investigate his complaints amounted to constructive dismissal which was automatically unfair because it resulted from a protected disclosure. The ET ruled that his claims had little prospect of success and imposed 3 deposit orders on the Claimant. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal in part, concluding that there was insufficiency of reasons in relation to the two claims or strands based on the first detriment. The second ground was dismissed. In relation to the third ground, it was open to the EJ to conclude that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success, and therefore there was no error of law in this part of the EJ’s decision.