At a preliminary hearing listed to deal with time limits, an EJ held that the Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal was out of time because, although she had some health problems at the material time, her health was not so poor that it was not reasonably practicable to submit her claim in time. He also held that it was not just and equitable to extend time under s.123 of the Equality Act in respect of complaints of disability discrimination and victimisation and refused to make an anonymity order. The Claimant appealed on four grounds and sought an anonymity order in the EAT.

The EAT allowed the appeal. 1) In light of the recent medical evidence, it was appropriate to make an anonymity order in the EAT; 2)The appeal challenging the EJ’s refusal of an anonymity order was stayed, because the appropriate course was for the ET first to reconsider its decision in light of the new medical evidence; 3) The EJ had repeatedly referred to granting or refusing an application to amend to introduce complaints of disability discrimination and victimisation, whereas permission to amend had already been granted at an earlier hearing and the issue before him was whether it was just and equitable to extend time under s.123 of the Equality Act. That was a legal error and it could not be said that the result would have been the same if he had addressed the correct question; 4) The EJ did not fail to have regard to the length of delay; 5) The EJ had made a material error of fact about the effect of the Claimant’s health at the material time.