In this long running case, the Claimant appealed against various decisions made in relation to her sex discrimination and harassment claims. The main grounds of appeal were 1) the ET had failed to apply the burden of proof when assessing the Claimant's discrimination claims; 2) the ET was wrong to conclude that the Claimant would have left her employment with the Respondent even if she had not been subject to harassment; 3) the ET had erred by reducing her award based on the Claimant's conduct; 4) the ET had erred by making an unless order and striking out her personal injury claim for non-compliance with the unless order.

The EAT dismissed all grounds of appeal. Taking each ground in turn, 1) The ET had addressed the Claimant's allegation of subconscious bias, assessing the evidence before it. It was unnecessary for it to recite or refer to every piece of evidence in that assessment; 2) The ET was also entitled to conclude, on the evidence before it, that the Claimant would have left the Respondent's employment in the event that she had not been harassed and that the chain of causation in relation to her loss was broken when the Claimant obtained a better-paid job with another employer, for whom she worked for 18 months and whom she regarded as supportive, before leaving to go to a less well-remunerated job nearer to her home. The ET had carried out a full assessment of the facts and had not limited its assessment to a finding that the Claimant had obtained a better-paid job; 3) the ET did not err in making a reduction in its award based on the Claimant's conduct, which was only revealed after her resignation. The ET was not required to make findings on the chance that such conduct would have been discovered or revealed; 4) The ET was entitled to conclude that the Claimant's breaches of the terms of the unless order were significant and to strike out her personal injury claim.