The Claimant, an architect, was dismissed for alleged redundancy following the introduction of the Coronavirus Jon Retention Scheme (“CJRS”). He had less than two years service at the time of his dismissal. The Claimant brought ET claims claiming that his dismissal was automatically unfair by reason of his protected disclosures. He also claimed that he had suffered detriments on the grounds of his protected disclosures. The ET dismissed the Claimant’s claims. It found that the matters relied upon by the Claimant did not amount to qualifying disclosures and none of the five proven detriments were done on the grounds of any protected disclosures. In any event, the ET was satisfied that the Claimant’s dismissal was for redundancy. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET rejected the Claimant’s case on the facts and made permissible findings that the disclosures did not amount to qualifying disclosures. The ET’s approach did not involve an error of law and it had given adequate reasons for its decision. The ET permissibly found that the disclosures had not been made in the public interest.