The claimant had been employed from 2001 and was dismissed in 2017. In 2010 he brought ET proceedings alleging discrimination by his then line manager. Those proceedings and a subsequent appeal failed. Similar proceedings were then issued in 2016 against his new managers and in 2017 these claims were dismissed. On his return to work the claimant was suspended and, following an investigation, he was dismissed because the relationship between om and the staff had broken down irretrievably. In these proceedings he claimed victimisation but the ET found that the suspension did not amount to a “detriment” and that the protected act(s) were not cause of the dismissal so he appealed

HHJ Shanks allows the appeal broadly for two reasons. First the ET was wrong to find that the suspension did not amount to a detriment: the Claimant had given evidence that he regarded it as a detriment and that opinion was reasonable in all the circumstances; the lack of medical or other evidence of detriment was irrelevant. Secondly, consideration of causation was flawed as the ET had not referred to the relevant case law (in particular Martin v Devonshire Solicitors) and had not considered whether the cause of the breakdown was separable from claims that were protected acts. The case was remitted back to the ET.