The claimant worked as an investigative support officer within the Firearms Licensing Unit of the respondent. In a meeting with the Respondent in October 2017, he voiced concerns about potentially dangerous people having access to firearms, the risk that people could be hurt if firearms got into the wrong hand, that there was a potential risk to public safety. The claimant contended he stated that checks were not being properly conducted. The ET dismissed his claims of detriment and dismissal which he asserted were because he had made protected disclosures, saying: 'Having regard to ... the unspecific evidence that the claimant gave in respect of the first occasion we have concluded that we cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant has established that he made protected disclosures.' The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET did not make the necessary findings of fact upon which a proper analysis could be made of whether there had been a relevant disclosure of information. Furthermore, there was no express consideration of the test set out in Kilraine. The ET stated that the claim in respect of the alleged disclosure was dismissed because the Claimant could not establish that he had made “protected disclosures” rather than that he could not establish any disclosure of information. It is impossible to know from that paragraph whether the ET determined that there was no disclosure of information or that it was not protected for some other reason, such as the Claimant not reasonably believing that the information disclosed tended to show wrongdoing and was made in the public interest.