The summary below is reproduced from the judgment of Lady Haldane.

Did the ET err in its approach to the question of protected act and causation of the detriment claimed by the claimant and accepted to have occurred?

The claimant, an employee of the respondent, was asked by its housing department to assist in moving a disabled client into alternative accommodation while repairs were carried out to his home. This request was outwith the claimant’s normal duties, but he requested and was granted permission to do so. His actions in assisting the client were asserted to be a protected act. A subsequent complaint founding on aspects of the support provided and also alleging a breach of confidentiality was made. The claimant was moved to alternative duties pending resolution of the complaint to avoid him coming into contact with the client. It was asserted, and accepted, that this was a detriment.

The ET concluded that the act claimed was not a protected act, and that in any event the accepted detriment arose because of the complaint, which was separable from the protected act. Even had it held the protected act established, the claimant would not have succeeded on causation. The claim was dismissed.

On appeal by the claimant, held that the ET had fallen into error in its assessment of the protected act, specifically in its conclusion that not every interaction with the client could be asserted to be a protected act, when that was not the basis of the claimant’s claim. However the assertion that the ET had fallen into error in relation to causation in applying a ‘but for’ test so far as causation was concerned was not made out. The ET had correctly addressed itself to causation and reached a permissible conclusion. Thus, as was agreed, since both grounds were inextricably linked, the appeal as a whole fell to be refused.