The claimant applied for posts with the respondent but was unsuccessful. She sent a letter to her MP and also made a complaint to the respondent, which they found to be unsubstantiated. However, the respondent failed to arrange for the appellant to be given an opportunity for the matter to be referred to another officer for a further review in accordance with the respondent's complaints policy so the claimant complained to an employment tribunal that she had been subjected to a detriment – the refusal to allow a further review of her complaint - because she had made a protected disclosure of information.

The Court of Appeal identified the following principal issues as (1) is the appellant in a materially analogous position to (a) workers or (b) applicants for posts with NHS employers?; (2) does being a job applicant amount to a status for the purpose of Article 14 of the Convention?; (3) is the difference in treatment arising out of the relevant statutory provisions objectively justifiable?; and (4) was the disclosure related to the appellant's application for employment? Lewis LJ giving the lead judgment dismissed the appeal stating at [113]

"The relevant legislation is compatible with Article 14, read with Article 10, of the Convention. The appellant, as an applicant for a job, is not in a materially analogous position to workers, or applicants for work or posts with NHS employers. The legislation pursues a legitimate aim and the means adopted to achieve that aim are appropriate and not disproportionate. Any difference in treatment which results from the provisions of the legislation is objectively justified."