Following her dismissal for the given reason of gross misconduct the Claimant in the ET brought wide-ranging legal complaints. At a preliminary hearing the tribunal struck out all of the complaints on various bases. The Claimant appealed and the challenge was permitted to proceed to a full hearing in respect of the decision to strike out three of her complaints relating to unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosures, direct sex discrimination and breach of contract.

The EAT allowed the appeal. In relation to a complaint of unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosures, the ET erred in holding that the Claimant had not complied with an earlier order to provide particulars, because the Claimant had in fact complied with that order in relation to that particular complaint. The ET also erred in striking out that complaint because it relied upon an erroneous premise as to when the disclosures were said to have been made, and because it failed to consider the Claimant’s case in respect of factually disputed matters at its highest, in particular in relation to matters which, she claimed, might have supported an inference in her favour. The ET also erred in striking out a complaint that the dismissal was an act of direct sex discrimination as having no reasonable prospect of success, in particular because it only considered the Claimant’s case in relation to one out of three male comparators relied upon by her. It also erred by treating the third complaint as an unlawful deduction from wages claim, when it was in fact a breach of contract claim, and failing to consider sufficiently whether there might be an arguable basis for it, framed in that way.