The Claimant, a part-time hairdresser, contended that she was dismissed when she told the Respondent that she was pregnant, alleging that the Respondent did not want to pay her maternity pay. In the ET, the Claimant claimed compensation for discrimination on the ground of pregnancy and also unpaid holiday pay. The Respondent did not file an ET3 response form within the required period, and the ET proceeded to a Remedy Hearing at which it made awards for holiday pay and pregnancy discrimination. The Respondent appealed, including a direction for a stay for an application for reconsideration, but no such application was made; by the grounds of appeal, the Respondent contended that the Claimant was not an employee, that the salon was closed because it was loss-making and it had ceased to trade, and that the original paperwork regarding the case was not received until after the date of the Remedy Hearing.

The EAT held, distinguishing Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes [2018] EWCA Civ 1842, that the grounds of appeal did not disclose any error of law on the part of the ET. Given that the Respondent had not applied to the ET for reconsideration, had not provided a draft ET3 and draft grounds of resistance, and had not explained why no action was taken prior to the Remedy Hearing and why no application for reconsideration was made to the ET, the appeal failed and would be dismissed.