The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Consultant Paediatric Neurologist. Relationships within the department were poor and, following numerous allegations and counter-allegations, the Claimant was summarily dismissed. He brought ET proceedings alleging automatic unfair dismissal for making public interest disclosures, "ordinary" unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The ET dismissed all of these claims, concluding that the Claimant's dismissal for gross misconduct was justified. Shortly after the exclusion of the Claimant by the Respondent, and his relocation to America, a patient died in the department; a report into the death commissioned by the Respondent found that, while there was no single cause, there was a series of root causes which may be indicative of problems in the department. In view of the new developments, the Claimant applied to the EJ for reconsideration of the ET's earlier judgment, but the application was refused (1) as being out of time with no valid reason given for considering it out of time, and (2) because it was not possible to repeat an application for reconsideration in the absence of any fresh information. The Claimant appealed against the refusal on the grounds that (1) the EJ failed to acknowledge that a valid reason was given for the application being out of time, since the Claimant said that he had only recently learned of the report, and (2) the EJ said that there was "no fresh information, only fresh allegations", but the Respondent's own findings in its own report could not sensibly be considered as mere allegations.

The EAT held that the EJ was wrong to say that (1) the Claimant had given no valid reason why his application should be considered out of time, and (2) the Claimant was only relying on further allegations. The appeal would be allowed and the matter remitted to the same EJ.