[Summary reproduced from the judgment]

The appellant, a dental hygienist, was suspended and thereafter summarily dismissed by the respondent. The date of dismissal was 30 September 2021. On 23 December 2021, he presented a claim form to the Employment Tribunal complaining of automatically unfair dismissal because of whistleblowing, ordinary unfair dismissal, protected disclosure detriment, and wrongful dismissal. Following an evidential hearing in July and August 2022, an Employment Tribunal dismissed his unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment complaints.
The appellant advanced 7 grounds of appeal. Three grounds related to the unfair dismissal complaints and four related to his complaints of protected disclosure detriment.

Held:

1) In the unfair dismissal complaints, the Employment Tribunal had erred by failing to make any finding about what was the respondent’s principal reason for dismissal. Its conclusion that the principal reason was “misconduct” did not address section 98(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act, 1996 (“ERA”), and was not Meek-compliant.

2) In the protected disclosure detriment complaints, the Tribunal had erred in concluding that (i) the disciplinary suspension of the appellant was not an act “extending over a period” in terms of section 48(4)(a) ERA; and (ii) the expression “disciplinary investigation” in the list of alleged detrimental acts was limited by the terms of a letter calling the appellant to a first investigatory meeting. It had also failed to consider whether those detrimental acts were “part of a series of similar acts or failures” (in terms of section 48(3)(a) ERA) as another proven act of protected disclosure detriment – refusing to allow the appellant access to his personnel file – which had occurred on 16 August 2021.