The claimant, army reservist, sought to bring claims of race and religious discrimination but did not bring the claim in time under the relevant service and ET rules. A hearing in the ET refused an extension of time to lodge but the claimant requested reconsideration. On the same day as the ET hearing (coincidentally) the military appeal body considering an appeal against rejection of his service complaint considered the matter in his absence, and made several findings in the claimant’s favour. He forwarded the letter to the ET but the ET rejected the reconsideration as reference to the document was not explicit in the covering letter.

HHJ Barklem finds that the ET’s rejection, given the circumstances, was entirely understandable but nevertheless allows the appeal as he explains at [13] that the test set out in Ladd v Marshall, under which a tribunal has discretion to reconsider its decision on the basis of new evidence, had been met and the employment judge's failure to recognise that there was additional material relevant to the reconsideration amounted to an error of law.