The original claim arose from the dismissal of the claimant in 2015. He alleged that the dismissal was related to his disability - he has ulcerative colitis - but the respondent stated it was by way of redundancy. At the original ET the claim failed and he appealed. The EAT allowed the appeal in part as the ET had failed to properly address the question of detriment potentially arising from the dismissal so the proceedings were remitted for reconsideration. The ET again rejected the claims and the claimant again appealed.

In this judgment, The President dismisses the appeal broadly because the ET had arrived at a decision that was plainly open to them. In particular, it had not erred in failing to draw adverse inferences from the respondent's failure to call as a witness the human resources adviser involved since the claimant had not identified that individual as a putative discriminator so the respondent could not be criticised for failing to address a case that had not been advanced against it.