The Claimant, who had worked for the Respondent as a bus operator for less than two years, was dismissed on conduct grounds. He brought various claims in the ET, including that he was subjected to detriment and/or had been dismissed for health and safety reasons, contrary to sections 44 and 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 ("ERA"). The ET struck out these claims as having no reasonable prospect of success; the Claimant appealed on grounds including that the ET erred (1) in concluding that he was not someone designated by the employer for the purposes of sections 44(1)(a) and 100(1)(a) ERA to carry out activities in connection with health and safety, and (2) in failing to treat him as being an employee at a place where there was no representative or safety committee.

The EAT held that the ET, having taken the Claimant's case at its highest, permissibly concluded that his claims under sections 44 and 100 of the ERA were not reasonably arguable; and, in reaching that decision, it did not err in law or in its approach.