Against a complex factual background, the Claimant faced five allegations of misconduct at a disciplinary hearing. An investigator, who worked for the Respondent's fraud group, had investigated the concerns raised, and gave evidence at the hearing and at a subsequent appeal, both of which found against the Claimant. The ET acknowledged that the investigator had appeared overly keen to look for evidence which might have supported, rather than diluted, his suspicions, but he then found such evidence; and the ET commented further that it was ultimately satisfied of the investigator's objectivity. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT held that the ET's conclusions were not perverse and there was no error of law.