The Claimant was dismissed and she claimed that the dismissal was because she had made protected disclosures. The ET, by a majority, held that her conversation with an outside visitor did qualify as a protected disclosure and upheld her claim of automatic unfair dismissal. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. There were factual issues before the ET as to whether the first claimed conversation had taken place at all, as to what had been said on the second occasion, and as to the reason or principal reason for the dismissal, which took place on the same day as the second conversation. The majority’s conclusions on all of these issues, and overall, were not perverse, nor was their reasoning flawed or insufficiently explained.