At the heart of the present appeal was the operation of a mobility clause contained in the Claimant's contract of employment. In reliance on that clause, the Respondent instructed her to change her place of work. The Claimant refused to comply with that instruction. She was then dismissed for gross misconduct. The ET held that the instruction had been lawfully given. The EAT dismissed her appeal. The grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal, reflecting the way the Claimant's case was presented in the EAT, were principally concerned with an allegation that the ET erred in law by failing to consider and apply the guidance given by the Supreme Court in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17; [2015] 1 WLR 1661 regarding the operation of a contractual discretion under a contract of employment. It was said that the Respondent failed sufficiently to investigate other options regarding the relocation of the Claimant, with the result that the instruction given to her pursuant to the mobility clause was unlawful. The grounds of appeal also complained that the ET failed to give sufficient reasons for its conclusion that the instruction given to the Claimant pursuant to the mobility clause was a lawful instruction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Claimant could not show that the ET committed any error of law in relation to dealing with her present arguments based on the Braganza case, for the simple reason that she did not raise those arguments in the ET.