The Claimant brought two claims in the ET. The Claimant sought interim relief in the second of the two claims. At a Preliminary Hearing the application for interim relief was refused, as was an application to amend the second claim. The Claimant appealed to the EAT but he EAT said that the claim had not been properly instituted because of the ET1 and ET3 not being included in one of the appeal applications. The Claimant sought an extension of time in which to properly institute the appeal. The application was refused by the Registrar. The Claimant appealed against that refusal.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The appeal against the two decisions was properly instituted because the Claimant provided the necessary documents within time, including the ET1 claim and ET3 response for the second claim that were required to appeal against the judgment refusing interim relief. It was not necessary to provide the ET1 claim and ET3 response for the second claim to appeal against the refusal to permit the amendment of the second claim because that appeal was against an order, rather than a judgment. The claimant was not required to submit the ET1 claim and ET3 response for the first claim because he did not appeal any decision made in that claim.