In this case, although the Claimant's line manager had on proscribed grounds (i.e. protected disclosures having been made by the Claimant) treated her as having a poor performance record, an ET said that a different manager who took the decision to dismiss her was unaware of that motivation and had made the decision in good faith on the basis of what she (reasonably) understood to be inadequate performance. The Claimant lost her claim of unfair dismissal. However, on the Respondent's appeal against her successful whistleblowing claim, the Claimant's cross appeal against the rejection of her unfair dismissal claim was allowed, the EAT saying that a decision a person made in ignorance of the true facts whose decision is manipulated by someone in a managerial position responsible for an employee, who is in possession of the true facts, can be attributed to the employer of both of them (read the EAT case here. The Respondent appealed against the EAT decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Even if the manager's conduct constituted a deliberate attempt to procure the Claimant's dismissal because she had made a protected disclosure, that motivation could not be attributed to Royal Mail as the employer since it was not shared by the dismissing officer.