The claimant had been disabled following a stroke in 2017 and had not returned to work. Occupational health advisors thought he would be unlikely to return in the foreseeable future. One of the respondent's HR team started a conversation with the claimant over dismissal or ill health retirement in the mistaken belief that the claimant could not benefit from their income protection policy - she delayed applying for it - but this position was reversed once the mistake was uncovered. The ET allowed the claim that a delay in applying for the income protection was ‘due to’ the manager's erroneous belief. In contrast, the ET dismissed the claim that the same manager initially attempted to dismiss the claimant because it was not something arising in consequence of the claimant’s disability, but the manager’s erroneous belief.

In this judgment Judge Keith states there is no reason in principle that an ET cannot reach different conclusions on different allegations but the facts of this case did not support that approach and the ET had erred in two respects: it failed to consider multiple causes and . misstated the ‘something arising.’ The claimant had claimed the same ‘something’ for both claims: absence due to long-term sickness. In contrast, the ET had considered the ‘something’ in the ‘delay’ claim as being long-term sickness absence and permanent incapacity, but only long-term sickness absence in the second ‘dismissal’ claim. That error had affected the ET’s analysis of both stages of causation, as the manager’s erroneous belief had been the same in both claims. As it was not obvious as to which claim should succeed, he ET needed to consider both claims afresh.