The Claimant, who had a recognised disability and was employed by the Respondent, brought claims in the ET for discrimination arising from disability under s 15 Equality Act 2010 ("EqA 2010") and harassment related to disability under s 26 EqA 2010; he also argued that his grievance had amounted to a protected disclosure and that he had suffered a detriment in consequence. By its decisions, the ET (1) dismissed the claims, and (2) allowed the Respondent's application for costs. The Claimant appealed (1) on grounds including that the ET failed to provide adequate reasons for the decisions it reached, and (2) on the ground that the ET erred in law by moving straight from a finding that parts of the claim had no reasonable prospect of success to the conclusion that costs should be awarded, without considering whether it should exercise its discretion to make a costs award.

The EAT held that (1) the ET had failed to provide adequate reasons in relation to two of the 27 allegations made by the Claimant, and (2) the ET had erred in law by moving straight from the first to the third stages of the exercise it had to undertake, failing to demonstrate any appreciation of the discretionary nature of a costs award. Accordingly, the issues identified in the two allegations would be remitted to the same ET, so far as practical. The Claimant's application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused.