The ET rejected claims of direct race discrimination in circumstances where it had found the alleged discriminator to have subjected the Claimant to harassment related to his race, and victimised him for having complained about it.  The reason for the rejection was because the Respondent had not done them for any reason of race, the logic being that the employer had engaged two employees of the same race on similar work, and therefore could not have been motivated by race. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The logic conclusion was a misdirection. Further, the ET had not identified that the treatment was less favourable than that which had or would have been given to another not of the Claimant's race, nor had it identified a comparator for the purposes of any such comparison, nor had it found what the reason was for the treatment (it purported to find what it had not been, but had done so on a false basis), nor did it seek to see whether the burden of proof may have passed to the Respondents.