The two Claimants won their claims at the ET and were awarded compensation following a remedy hearing. They appealed the remedy judgment on several grounds, that the ET had erred by: 1) not applying an ACAS uplift; 2) concluding that neither Claimant had not properly mitigated their loss; 3) concluding that neither Claimant was due an amount for personal injury; 4) making an error when calculating the loss of bonus; and 5) copying and pasting large sections of the remedy reasons from the written submissions of the Respondent's counsel.

The EAT allowed the appeal on most of the grounds. The ET erred by concluding that there was a 'broad degree of compliance' by the Respondent and so an ACAS uplift was not applicable. The period of loss for both of the Claimants also needed to be assessed again and the personal injury question for one of them was remitted. It was agreed there were calculation errors related to the bonus and this aspect was also remitted. The complaint about the cutting and pasting from the remedy submissions was dismissed.