The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after emailing HR to object to a colleague's potential transfer, expressing concern that he would form a "clique" with another employee because both were Indian. The ET found this to be a genuinely-held but discriminatory belief, dismissing complaints of victimisation, unfair dismissal for protected disclosures, and ordinary unfair dismissal. The claimant argued before the EAT that the ET failed to consider that she was not properly notified before the disciplinary hearing that the email was regarded as discriminatory, and failed to weigh her explanation that she would have raised the same concern regardless of the employees' shared nationality.

HHJ Auerbach dismissed the appeal on both grounds. On Ground 1, although the disciplinary charges could have been better drafted, the ET was entitled to conclude, looking at the "end-to-end" process, that the claimant understood the substance of the allegation and had a fair opportunity to respond to it throughout. On Ground 2, the claimant's argument rested on a false premise: her stated position that colleagues sharing any nationality or religion would form cliques did not contradict, but rather confirmed, the reasonable finding that she would not have objected to the transfer had the colleagues not shared the same race.