The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a trader, earning significant sums of money. When he was dismissed, he brought a claim for unfair dismissal, and the ET decided to consider liability issues separately from quantum. At the liability hearing, the ET applied an ACAS uplift of 25% to the award of compensation, without reference to the monetary consequences of the uplift. The Respondent did not seek reconsideration within the prescribed period of 14 days, but it did indicate its intention to appeal, on the basis that the ET had erred in fixing the uplift at 25%; at the remedies hearing, the ET subsequently decided that it should reconsider the 25% uplift "on its own initiative", and the Respondent withdrew its appeal. The Claimant appealed against reconsideration, and the issues for the EAT to consider were (1) did the Respondent apply for reconsideration, (2) is a party entitled to invoke the ET's power to reconsider, and (3) was the ET's decision on the uplift final?

The EAT held that the order applying the uplift had been made as a result of a combination of errors by both parties and the ET; the EAT upheld the ET's view that, because it was a "genuine, common mistake", it could reconsider the order "on its own initiative", and giving the Claimant an opportunity to be heard on the issue would not have affected the outcome. Accordingly, the appeal would be dismissed and the matter remitted to the ET to proceed.