Appeal by claimant from a liability decision of the Employment Tribunal which decided that his claim of victimisation was not well-founded. The respondent also appealed a costs award.

The claimant had applied to be a police officer with the respondent. In his application he mentioned, among other things, he had initiated employment tribunal proceedings with another force after his job offer had been withdrawn for failing the vetting process. The respondent gave the claimant a conditional offer but that was withdrawn for “failing to meet the respondent’s requirements in respect of vetting”.

In the ET, it was agreed that the claimant had undertaken a protected act but the judge found that the claimant had suffered no detriment. On appeal, the EAT decided that the tribunal had not asked itself the correct question, that of “is the treatment of such a kind that a reasonable worker would or might take the view that in all the circumstances it was to his detriment?” [Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary] nor of causation: did the protected act had a significant influence on the outcome. The victimisation claim was therefore remitted for rehearing.