The Claimant was employed by the Respondent from 21 November 2018 until her dismissal on 11 June 2020. She brought complaints of automatically unfair dismissal in terms of section 103A of the Employment Rights Act, 1996 (“ERA”) (whistleblowing), section 47B ERA (detriment on the ground of whistleblowing), and automatically unfair dismissal contrary to section 100(1)(d) ERA (health and safety). In the whistleblowing complaints, the ET concluded that although the Claimant had disclosed information to her employer, (a) she had not done so in the public interest; and (b) none of the section 43B ERA factors had been proved. It further concluded that the reason for the Claimant’s dismissal was her performance rather than the making of a protected disclosure. The Claimant appealed against those conclusions.

The EAT allowed the appeal in relation to the complaint under section 47B ERA. The ET’s reasons showed that it had erred in law. It had failed to make the necessary findings as to the Claimant’s state of mind, and had erroneously substituted its own view on the question of reasonable belief. The ET’s conclusion about the reason for dismissal was a finding of fact. Correctly, the ET recognised that, in applying section 103A ERA, its task was to identify the “principal” reason for the dismissal. It did so and reached a conclusion that was rational and that was plainly open to it on the evidence. It had not erred in law in dismissing the complaint under section 103A ERA.