The Claimant brought various claims to the ET including unlawful deductions and victimisation. She named The Wellington Club as Respondent for some claims and Ms Brooks for another. The Claimant was permitted at a PH to amend her claim to add as a fifth respondent 'Ms Nicola Brooks T/A The Wellington Club'. As second Respondent, she was permitted to substitute 'Mr Jake Panayiotou T/A The Wellington Club'. This was on the basis of her contention that Ms Brooks and Mr Panayiotou formed the club as a partnership, were the Claimant's employers and therefore were liable for all of the claims mentioned above. Although Ms Brooks was already a third Respondent to the claim, this was not in the capacity of alleged employer. Neither Respondent attended that PH or the final hearing. Having heard evidence at the final hearing, the EJ decided that Ms Brooks in an individual capacity was trading as the Wellington Club and was the Claimant's employer. Judgment was made in favour of the Claimant. Ms Brooks appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET erred in allowing an amendment of a claim to allege that a Respondent was the Claimant’s employer, and in proceeding with the final hearing and finding that that Respondent was the employer and was liable for unauthorised deductions, harassment and victimisation, where the Respondent did not attend either hearing and had not had notice of the amendment and where the evidence provided an insufficient basis for the finding.