In this equal pay claim, one of the Claimants completed an ET1 in full. The ET1 forms from the other Claimants referred to an attachment to the first Claimant's ET1 form. The Respondent argued that the claims, other than the first one, should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The ET disagreed saying that a reasonable employer would have been able to discern which claim the Claimants were referring to and hence which claims they were making, and that this was sufficient presentation of the details to comply with the 2004 rules. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. A literal and restrictive interpretation of the Rules is not to be encouraged and there was no error of law in the approach taken by the EJ.