The Claimant (before the ET) had been employed by the Respondent, and was subsequently dismissed in circumstances of disability discrimination. A preliminary hearing was held but a full hearing did not take place, as the hearing fee was not paid and there was no application for remission. The Respondent sought a Wasted Costs Order against the Claimant's representative at the ET (who is the Appellant in this appeal); this application was rejected on the basis that the Appellant had given the ET the impression that he had been taking active steps to ensure that the hearing took place and was not struck out. Further investigation by the Respondent revealed that neither the Claimant nor the Appellant had ever applied for fee remission; the ET entertained a reconsideration application at a further hearing, which was challenged by the Appellant.

The EAT held that the ET was entitled to conclude that it was in the interests of justice to reconsider its earlier decision, because it had been misled by the Appellant about the steps taken to apply for fee remission.