The Claimant, who was employed by the Respondent as a Medical Laboratory Assistant, brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, race and sex discrimination, victimisation, harassment and detriment on grounds of making public interest disclosures. At the ET hearing, the Claimant applied for the Respondent's response to be struck out, as he believed that one of the witnesses had lied, but the ET refused his application and stated that, if he chose not to give evidence in support of his claims, the proceedings would be dismissed. The Claimant indicated that he was not prepared to continue with the hearing, despite being offered two adjournments, and so the ET dismissed his claims. The Claimant appealed, contending that the ET's decision was wrong in law or perverse and/or that the ET's written reasons in that respect were not Meek or Rule 62 compliant.

The EAT held that the ET, in dismissing the Claimant's claims, was not wrong in law and did not act perversely, and that it was possible to distil the basis of the ET's actions from the reasoning that was provided. Further, it rejected the Respondent's application for an award of costs.