The Claimant resigned alleging repudiatory breach. It was alleged that the Claimant had been subject to intolerable treatment amounting to a fundamental breach of his contract of employment and that he had been constructively dismissed on the basis that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures made by him. The ET dismissed his claims - although they accepted that the Claimant had made some protected disclosures, none of the detriments alleged by the Claimant was on the ground that the Claimant had made protected disclosures. The ET also found that the Claimant was not constructively unfairly dismissed. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal for the following reasons: 1) The ET did not err in failing to refer expressly to an aspect of the Claimant's case that was neither pleaded nor identified in the agreed List of Issues; 2) The contention that the ET failed to give reasons for its decision was misconceived and based on a misunderstanding as to the ET's function in giving reasons; 3) Whilst the ET might have misstated the test in respect of victimisation, that error made no difference to the outcome; 4) The reconsideration appeal and the application to adduce new evidence failed because the new evidence did not satisfy the first two limbs of the test in Ladd v Marshall.