The claimant had made allegations of sexual harassment and subsequent victimisation when she made compliant to her manager and the business owner. The ET had found some of these allegations proven though not all of them as she had exaggerated and distorted some of her claims. The respondents appealed on grounds that broadly the tribunal had: wrongly approached the issue of bad faith in relation to the protected act(s); reached a perverse conclusion of fact; failed to properly consider the submissions that owner’s reaction in the telephone conversation was caused not by the fact that of the allegations but the manner in which they were made and reached perverse conclusions that owner had victimised, harassed and discriminated against the claimant in that telephone call.

After reviewing the allegations and the ET’s reasoning, HHJ Shanks allows the appeals, most notably because, in relation to some of the allegations, ”it was difficult to see how one can be said to be “not credible” and to have “distorted matters” while having an honest belief in what is being alleged”. He does, however, reject submissions from counsel for the appellants to remit to a different tribunal.