The claimant had worked for the respondent as a casual support worker. There was an incident on a shift in 2019 following which was investigated and as a result the respondent stopped using the claimant so he instigated these proceedings. The ET dismissed, unanimously, his complaint about the decision to investigate; dismissed, by a majority, the dismissal complaint. However the tribunal upheld, by a different majority, a complaint about the conduct of the investigation.

In this judgment Auerbach HHJ allows the respondent's appeal on that third point as the tribunal majority’s reasoning in relation to it was inconsistent with the majority reasoning in relation to the dismissal complaint and was not Meek-compliant.