The Claimant, a serving police officer, alleged a number of instances of victimisation and of harassment related to disability and sex. In the course of preparing his claims in the ET, he made various subject access requests for information. A majority of the ET found that the Respondent was liable for victimisation of the Claimant by one of its employees subjecting the Claimant to three separate detriments in relation to his subject access requests. The Respondent appealed, contending that there was no evidence to support the ET's finding, or that it was otherwise perverse; and that the ET had wrongly concluded that the burden of proof had shifted to the Respondent.

The EAT held that the ET did not have any proper or sufficient basis to support its conclusion, and so its conclusion was perverse and could not stand; as regards the other ground of appeal, the EAT held that the matters considered by the ET were not sufficient, whether separately or cumulatively, to support the conclusion that the burden of proof passed to the Respondent. Accordingly, the ET's decision that the Respondent victimised the Claimant would be quashed, and a judgment dismissing all of the victimisation claims would be substituted.