The Claimant was British and the Respondent was an almost exclusive German and German-speaking operation. The Claimant claimed indirect race discrimination because of the Respondent's website only being in German which he did not speak. He also claimed indirect race discrimination because a job role he applied for required him to speak German and he was also required to speak German in meetings. The ET considered that it was obvious that the Respondent could not be expected to conduct its business in English for the benefit of one employee in the UK when the business was overwhelmingly based in German-speaking countries with German speaking employees. The ET considered the point was so obvious that it could be determined summarily with only limited consideration of the facts. The ET therefore struck out his claims because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. Without a detailed analysis of the discriminatory effect of the PCP it was not possible for the ET to properly assess the objective balance between the discriminatory effect of the PCPs and the reasonable needs of the Respondent. The ET granted a substantial margin of appreciation to the employer. It was stymied in reaching its own judgment by the limitations of the strike out process. The absence of witness evidence from the Respondent that could be properly challenged by the Claimant meant that the analysis of the ET was insufficiently critical and thorough. It did not involve a detailed analysis of the working practices and business considerations involved. There was insufficient in the judgment to demonstrate that the required exercise was carried out. The judgment was superficial.