The Claimant had brought a whistleblowing complaint in 2009. Following numerous hearings (including one in 2012, for which the Employment Judge's notes appeared to have been inadvertently destroyed between 2013 and 2016), the ET refused an application for the provision to both parties of (a) a copy of any contemporaneous written notes of evidence of the 2012 hearing, and (b) a brief statement identifying any recollections of the evidence given at that hearing. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that the ET erred (1) in refusing the application on the basis that the parties had consented to the ET approaching the matter in the way suggested in its Reasons, which would be unfair, and (2) in considering that the interests of justice or proportionality required or justified the refusal of the Claimant's application.

The EAT held that there had been no material change for the purposes of determining whether it would be appropriate to interfere with the ET's case management order.