The claimant, a college employee, succeeded in his claim for constructive unfair dismissal but claims of harassment, victimisation and direct discrimination on grounds of race, sex and age were dismissed. The claimant appealed contrasting the college's swift response to a colleague's allegation against him (later found false and withdrawn) compared with its inaction on his own numerous complaints against her, arguing this disparity should have shifted the burden of proof.

Sarah Crowther KC, sitting as a deputy, dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal had correctly self-directed on the burden of proof and reached factual conclusions properly open to it on the evidence. Several factual premises underlying the claimant's ground - that the college acted immediately, issued a "warning," and ignored his complaints entirely - were inconsistent with unchallenged findings showing the college had in fact investigated and responded to his grievances. The Tribunal had properly found the college's decision not to investigate the withdrawn allegation was because the colleague declined to pursue it, unrelated to any protected characteristic, and this non-discriminatory explanation was amply supported by the evidence, including comparator analysis.