The Claimant was employed by the first Respondent (R1) as a senior post-doctoral research scientist in the second Respondent’s (R2) lab on a series of fixed-term contracts the last of which was extended from 1/4/16 to 31/3/19. His employment was dependent on funding from various grants. In 2018 R2 initiated an application for funding to the Wellcome Trust and prepared a “review manuscript” in support; the Claimant complained that R2 had plagiarised his work and acted in breach of academic ethics in so doing; those complaints amounted to “protected disclosures”. The relationship between the Claimant and R2 broke down and both of them said he did not wish to proceed with that application and nothing was done to pursue other options. The Claimant applied for permanent status but was told his contract would expire on 31/3/19. The Claimant suffered anxiety and depression and did not work from January 2019 and was not able to attend a meeting to discuss his situation. His contract terminated on 31/3/19. He brought claims in the ET inter alia alleging (a) that he had become a permanent employee pursuant to reg 8 of the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of less favourable treatment) Regulations 2002, (b) that he had been unfairly dismissed, (c) that he had suffered detriments (in particular the deliberate failure by R2 and R3 to seek or secure further funding and the refusal by R1 to renew his contract) on the grounds that he had made “protected disclosures” and (d) that he was “disabled” and the respondents had failed to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the procedure leading up to the non-renewal of his contract. The ET found that the Claimant was effectively dismissed on 31/3/19 by reason of redundancy and that he had made the protected disclosures alleged but rejected all his claims. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal on two of the four grounds. Specifically the ET’s reasons for concluding that any detriment the Claimant suffered was not on the ground that he had made protected disclosures did not justify that conclusion and the issue would have to be remitted. Also, in rejecting the Claimant’s claim of procedural unfair dismissal the ET made the error exemplified in the Polkey case of asking itself whether it would have made any difference to the outcome if R1 had taken the procedural steps contended for and that that claim would have to be remitted.