The claimant, a receptionist, was dismissed for misconduct and lodged an ET1 in 2018. The claim form made mention of possible direct discrimination as a result of the claimant's dyslexia, reinforced in a paper apart. This appeal arose from a case management decision where the ET judge refused the claimant's application to relabel, or alternatively amend, her existing claim to include direct discrimination as no facts had been pleaded that were capable of supporting such relabelling.

In this appeal, the claimant argued the ET had failed to properly analyse whether the paper apart's language was sufficient to found a direct discrimination claim. Lady Haldane agreed and allowed the appeal as the ET had erred both in failing to recognise this and in treating amendment as necessary for the claim to proceed. Since only one outcome was possible, the EAT substituted its own decision, then remitted the matter to the ET to progress.