The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Clinical Senior Lecturer, and there was a lengthy history of grievances, complaints and long-term sick leave. Following a redundancy process, the Claimant's contract was terminated, and she brought a number of claims in the ET including for automatic and "standard" unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, harassment, victimisation and breach of contract. The ET rejected all of these claims, and the Claimant appealed on the grounds that (1) the ET erred in failing to identify the decision maker in relation to the redundancy, with the result that the "mental processes" of those persons could not be subjectively examined, and (2) the ET had omitted from its reasons "relevant and probative evidence" and had excluded other evidence.

The EAT held that the decision makers were adequately identified in the reasons, without the need to name each member of the redundancy committee, and that the ET's choice of witnesses and evidence was a sensible and permissible case management decision; accordingly, the ET was entitled to reach the conclusion that the Claimant's dismissal was genuinely by reason of redundancy, and the appeal would be dismissed.