The Claimant was employed by the Respondent and made a whistleblowing claim against it. He applied for an order requiring the Respondent to disclose documents that would support his claim, but the Respondent contended that s 105 Utilities Act 2010 prevented it from disclosing many potentially relevant documents. The ET found that s 105 was incompatible with the Claimant's Convention rights, but that it was "possible" to read s 105 so as to be compatible with the Claimant's Convention rights by adding a new paragraph in s 105(6). The Respondent appealed against the second finding.

The EAT decided that the ET had erred in law in its approach to the interpretation of s 105: it was not possible to read s 105 so as to be compatible with the Claimant's Convention rights, and that was the only conclusion that the ET could have reached. The EAT, with the agreement of the parties, substituted its decision for that of the ET.