The Claimant brought five separate claims against the Respondents, including claims of detrimental treatment owing to protected disclosures, which this appeal was concerned with. The claims were originally dismissed after the ET found that the Claimant had not made any qualifying disclosures but the EAT allowed the Claimant's appeal and remitted the case to the ET. The case was re-heard and the second ET upheld some of the Claimant’s claims, holding that he had been subjected to six detriments for having made protected disclosures. The Respondents appealed to the EAT and, after a preliminary hearing, permission was granted on eight grounds, which were directed at each of the six detriments in respect of which the claims were upheld. The Claimant then cross-appealed on one ground, contending that the ET had erred in rejecting one of the Claimant’s other detriments claims.

The EAT allowed the cross-appeal on grounds that it was perverse for the ET not to have accepted that the Claimant had been subjected to a ‘detriment’ in law. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that there was no other error of law in the ET’s decision.