The Claimant worked for the Respondent, but his behaviour was regarded by management and colleagues as amounting to constant complaining and a failure to get on with generating business, and his employment was terminated. The Claimant's claim before the ET set out 37 separate alleged public interest disclosures, and the ET had no hesitation in finding that none of the alleged protected disclosures were in fact protected disclosures; it went on to say that it would be utterly fanciful to state that the "principal reason" for the Claimant's dismissal was that he had made protected disclosures. The Claimant appealed on seven grounds relating to ways in which the ET had erred in law.

The EAT gave detailed consideration to each of the grounds and held that there was no error of law in relation to the reason for dismissal, and the appeal would be dismissed on all grounds.