The Claimant, who worked for the Respondent Council, submitted a complaint under its Dignity at Work procedures ("DAW") that he had been bullied and treated unfairly by various individuals. Following his DAW complaint, further allegations were made against him and he was suspended. The Claimant submitted a formal complaint that, since his DAW complaint, he had been victimised in various respects by the making of allegations against him, and he was concerned that he was not being regularly contacted by the Respondent during his suspension. When the Claimant brought proceedings in the ET for victimisation and discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, and for constructive unfair dismissal and race discrimination, the ET struck out the constructive unfair dismissal and direct discrimination claims. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that the ET erred in law in concluding that (1) the claim of race discrimination had no reasonable prospect of success, and (2) the Respondent Council's failure to contact the Claimant during his period of sickness absence was not capable of amounting to a "last straw" within the meaning of the decision in Omilaju.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in law in striking out the Claimant's claims, and it substituted a decision that the claims did have a reasonable prospect of success.