The ET refused the Claimant permission to amend his claim form saying that the amendment set out a case which was entirely different, with one exception, from the case that was originally advanced in the claim form.

The EAT allowed the appeal. This case refers extensively to the doctrine of 'relation back'. The EAT said that the EJ had been wrong to refuse permission to amend without hearing any evidence. His evaluation of the likelihood of any subsequent extension of time on the grounds that it was "just and equitable" and the lack of resolution of the issue as to whether or not there was a "continuing act" both amounted to errors of law and the case was remitted for re-consideration in the light of the above decision.