The Claimant, who was employed by the Respondent, alleged that he had been subjected to detriments on grounds of having made protected disclosures, unfairly dismissed by reason of having made protected disclosures and ordinarily unfairly dismissed, and he claimed damages for breach of contract. After various hearings, including the making of an Unless Order requiring the Claimant to give further details of the protected disclosures, the ET concluded that the Claimant had failed to comply with the Unless Order, and it struck out all of the claims. The Claimant appealed on grounds including that the ET had erred in its conclusion that there had been material non-compliance.

The EAT held that the ET correctly concluded that there had been material non-compliance with the Unless Order in respect of some of the disclosures, but it had erred in concluding that the particulars of every one of the protected disclosure claims were materially deficient. Accordingly, the ET's decision would stand in respect of some of the disclosures and the breach of contract claims, but the matter would be remitted to a fresh ET to reconsider whether or not there had been material non-compliance in respect of the other disclosures.