The Claimant did a protected act by lodging an equal pay questionnaire and an equal pay claim, and the detriment relied on was the withdrawal by the Respondent of an offer of bank locum work. The Claimant claimed victimisation by the Respondent, and the issues before the ET concerned the person who had made the decision to revoke the offer to join the Respondent's locum bank, and the reason for that decision. The ET upheld the Claimant's claim of victimisation, and the Respondent appealed on the grounds that the ET had erred in law (1) in upholding a claim that it had no jurisdiction to determine by concluding that the Claimant had been victimised because of a protected act which she had not relied in her professionally drafted grounds of complaint, and (2) in making findings of dishonesty against a witness without affording him the fair opportunity to respond.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in law, on the first ground, in deciding a claim of victimisation that was qualitatively different from that which had been pleaded and previously discussed at a preliminary hearing; and, on the second ground, in making findings which necessarily impugned the witness's integrity where he did not fairly have the opportunity to respond and where the nature of the allegations appeared to have shifted by the time the ET reached its decision. Accordingly, the case would be remitted to a fresh ET for a complete rehearing.