The ET found that the First Respondent employer (FGW) had inflicted detriments on the Claimant in 2018 on the ground that he had made protected disclosures in 2012 and because he had done protected acts in 2013. The ET also found that a particular employee, whom FGW chose not to call as a witness, had played a major part in influencing the Third Respondent decision maker, who was found not liable because he did not know about the protected disclosures and acts dating from 2012 and 2013. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET was entitled to find that FGW had, through that employee and one or more other unidentified employees within its management, perpetuated a culture of prejudice and ill will towards the Claimant which encouraged the Third Respondent decision maker to treat the Claimant unfairly in a disciplinary investigation in 2018, leading ultimately to a written warning in 2019.