The Respondent was employed by the Appellant in their nursery, which was run in accordance with strict Jewish principles. She was dismissed from her position as team leader, when it became known that she was cohabiting with her boyfriend, on the basis that she had acted in contravention of the nursery's culture, ethos and religious beliefs and had damaged the nursery's reputation. She brought claims of unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex and on grounds of religion or belief, and the ET found in her favour on all claims; the Appellant appealed against all of the ET's findings.

The EAT held that the ET's findings of fact on the claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment were a sufficient basis for its conclusions; however, there was insufficient evidence to support any conclusion that the Appellant, acting because of its own religion or belief, had directly discriminated against the Respondent on the grounds of her religion or belief; and, further, there was insufficient evidence to support the ET's conclusion, in relation to the claim of indirect discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, that the Appellant had applied any provision, criterion or practice to the Respondent.