The Appellant successfully claimed unfair dismissal in 2014 and sought reinstatement. That was refused, but she appealed that decision. The matter was remitted to the ET which again refused to order reinstatement in 2018. The Appellant's application for reconsideration was refused, and she then lodged a single Notice of Appeal that included grounds A and B against the judgment refusing reinstatement and ground C against the judgment refusing reconsideration. The sift judge considered that it was impermissible to aggregate all three grounds in a single Notice of Appeal and that a separate Notice of Appeal should have been lodged for ground C. In view of the sift judge's decision, the Appellant lodged a separate Notice of Appeal for ground C, and sought leave to have it received late, but the Registrar refused to permit time to be extended. The Appellant appealed against the sift judge's decision regarding ground C and against the Registrar's refusal to extend time.

The EAT held that the sift judge should not have rejected ground C: where the appeal follows from a single hearing and the second order appealed against is in effect an iteration of the first, where the appeal days for both orders are still current and where the Notice of Appeal makes it clear that it is a combined appeal against the original order and the reconsideration order, a single Notice of Appeal is competent. The EAT also held that it would have granted the Appellant's appeal against the Registrar's order, since there were special circumstances in this case, the ground of appeal in question had already been notified to the Respondents, and the error was entirely procedural.