The claims arose from the claimants termination that he claimed was related to his allegations around GDPR breaches in relation to his pay, he had been underpaid, and that staff were being put into jobs for which they were unqualified. The claims were originally dismissed but set aside by the EAT and remitted for further case management. That ET considered amendments to the claims which were again dismissed and this appeal was instigated.

In this judgment, The President reviews the law governing protected disclosures and amending a claim before recounting the complex procedural history and the parties submissions. She then goes on to analyse the ET's reasoning in rejecting the amendments and, while the decisions were largely reasonable, she does allow the appeal on one ground largely because allowing the amendment would not not unduly prejudice the respondents.