The Claimant, who had less than 2 years service, was dismissed on purportedly performance, attendance and attitude grounds. The Claimant argued that he had been dismissed for raising grievances which constituted protected acts and therefore his claim of unfair dismissal could be heard. The ET dismissed his claim, despite the HR manager describing the Claimant as a 'complainer', thus raising the possibility that the Claimant had been dismissed for bringing the grievances. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET found there was the 'complainer' element in the decision; that is connected to the protected acts but the ET drew the conclusion that it was separable. How being a 'complainer' could properly be separable from the complaint was something, in the EAT's judgment, that needed to be clearly explained. Without that clear separation of reasons why something happened, it was not possible for a reader to understand what the ET considered had caused the decision. Having not explicitly said that the protected acts played no part in the reason why the Claimant was dismissed, the EAT found that the ET had fallen into error and the reasons were not Meek compliant.