The Respondent, who worked as a nanny for the Appellants, brought claims in the ET that included failure to pay the national minimum wage. She was awarded just under £300; and, on the parties' applications against each other for costs orders, an order of just over £500 was made against the Second Appellant. The Appellants appealed against both judgments: the appeal against the costs decision was lodged on the final permissible day (but after the 4pm deadline), and the appeal against the liability decision was out of time by 219 days. The EAT Registrar ruled that they were not satisfied that the explanation for delay in appealing against the costs decision (namely, issues with the internet) amounted to an exceptional circumstance, such that they should extend time.

The EAT, having considered the applications for extensions of time afresh, held in relation to the appeal against the costs decision that the principle that extensions would be rare and exceptional applied also to short extensions; on the appeal against the liability decision, the EAT concluded that the Appellants had changed their mind about wishing to appeal, possibly motivated by hostile behaviour against them on the part of the Respondent, but the strictness of the appeal time limit should not be relaxed because of a mere change of mind.