The Claimant raised a grievance 4 years after an alleged incident and relied on his grievance in this regard as both a protected disclosure and a protected act. An ET found that the Claimant's belief in the allegation had not been a reasonable belief and was not made in good faith (the relevant findings in respect of the protected disclosure claims) and this meant that it was a false allegation made in bad faith for the purposes of the victimisation complaint. The Claimant's claims were dismissed and he appealed against the dismissal of the claim of victimisation.

The EAT allowed the appeal. They had to decide whether the ET erred in law by using the test for whether a public interest disclosure has been made in "good faith", to consider whether what would otherwise be a "protected act" has been made in "bad faith" for the purposes of section 27(3) EqA. The ET had erred in law in reading across from its finding of absence of good faith for the purposes of the Claimant's protected disclosure claim to its determination of bad faith under section 27(3) EqA. The two statutory contexts were different and the ET had failed to engage with the specific questions raised by subsection 27(3) EqA.