The original Claimants brought an equal pay claim for the period prior to 1 May 2011 (the James multiple) which was either withdrawn or dismissed. Following a new pay structure at the Respondent, they brought another claim (the Gordon multiple) which, the Respondent argued, did not include the period of the James multiple. The ET agreed that the Gordon multiple did not include complaints about equal pay which pre-dated 1 May 2011. The EAT overturned this decision, the judge saying, on balance, that the correct interpretation of the claim forms was that they did include a claim in respect of the period before 1 May 2011. The Respondent appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the ET decision. The clear effect of the grounds, read as a whole and in the context of the procedural history to which they themselves referred, was that the claims were confined to the period following the introduction of the new pay structure, and the separate role of the new set of proceedings was likely to have been understood by all those concerned.