The Claimant, who had worked as a consultant surgeon for the respondent for more than ten years, faced an investigation into his work performance and subsequently resigned. Three days after the deadline for presenting his claim, he brought claims in the ET for constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination on the ground of race, referring to incidents of "harassment" over several years. The ET dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it was out of time and it had been reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. The ET also decided that the race discrimination claim had not been presented in time and it was not just and equitable to extend time, since the alleged acts of harassment giving rise to the claim had taken place much earlier and the delays in bringing the claim were of the Claimant's own making. The Claimant appealed, contending that the ET erred, when deciding whether to extend time in relation to a possible claim of discriminatory constructive dismissal, in not taking account of the fact that, while that possible claim drew on "historic" allegations, if it had been presented three days earlier, it would have been in time.

The EAT held that there was no flaw or fault in the exercise of the ET's discretion in refusing to extend time, and there was nothing unlawful or perverse about the manner in which it exercised its discretion, applying the just and equitable test.