The Claimant was dismissed by the Respondent and brought various claims. The ET upheld complaints of detriment done on the ground that the Claimant had made protected disclosures, wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal, but it rejected a complaint that the dismissal was for the reason, or principal reason, that the Claimant had made protected disclosures. The Respondent accepted that the ET had found that the Claimant had made a number of protected disclosures, and that the ET had determined that the Respondent had done acts by which the Claimant had been subject to detriments, but it appealed on the ground that the ET "failed to consider whether the acts done by the Respondent were done on the grounds that the Claimant had made the protected disclosure".

The EAT held that the ET did not determine the causation issue in respect of the protected disclosure detriment claim; even though the ET carefully considered the law of causation in detriment claims, including the burden of proof provisions, the EAT could not infer that a conclusion was reached on the causation issue or draw out the full reasoning for any such conclusion. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the same ET for a specific determination on the question of whether the detriments were caused in material part by the protected disclosures that were established.