The Claimant was employed on a temporary assignment by the Respondent. Following a meeting between the Claimant and an employee of the Respondent, at which the Claimant alleged that he had made protected disclosures, the Respondent terminated the Claimant's assignment with immediate effect. On the basis of the evidence before it, the ET concluded that the Claimant had not made protected disclosures at the meeting and that the Respondent's reason for terminating the Claimant's assignment was his negative and dismissive attitude. The Claimant appealed on grounds including that the ET had reached a perverse finding about what the Claimant had disclosed at the meeting, and that the ET had erred in law in failing to consider whether, even on the findings it had made about what the Claimant had disclosed, he had established that this was information which tended to show a failure to comply with a legal obligation.

The EAT held that the ET had not made perverse findings of fact about what matters had been disclosed to the Respondent by the Claimant prior to the detriments complained of, and there was no material error of law in the ET's conclusion that the complaints made by the Claimant did not amount to qualifying disclosures.