The Claimant, having worked for the Respondent for more than eight years, was dismissed by reason of redundancy. He brought claims in the ET for unfair dismissal under s 98 ERA, disability discrimination and victimisation, and automatic unfair dismissal because of a protected disclosure. The ET accepted that the Claimant had made a protected disclosure, and it was satisfied that the Respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the Claimant was a disabled person by reason of his shoulder impairment. The ET found, however, that the reason for the Claimant's dismissal was redundancy, which it characterised as a "finding of fact". The Claimant appealed, contending that the ET erred in its finding as to the reason for his dismissal and that it was not a reason – specifically disability, protected act or protected disclosure – that was other than redundancy.

The EAT held that the ET had failed to engage with the issues that would have been necessary to determine that redundancy was the real reason for the Claimant's dismissal, beyond simply finding that there was a redundancy situation. Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed and the matter would be remitted to the same ET to determine the key question raised by the Claimant's claim: what was the real reason for his dismissal?