The Claimant, who describes himself as black African, has continuous service with the Respondent since 2011. He successfully brought a claim in the ET of unlawful direct race discrimination arising from the Respondent's failure to take steps to enrol him on a course that would develop him professionally, and the fact that the Respondent required him to work every weekend. The ET awarded compensation for injury to feelings, but the Claimant appealed on the grounds of (1) the ET's failure to award interest on the compensation, and (2) the placing of the compensation award in the lower, rather than the middle, of the three bands in the Vento guidelines.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in law in failing to award interest to the Claimant, since it was required to consider interest whether or not an application had been made by a party; however, there was no error of law in the ET's decision to place the compensation award at the top of the lower Vento band, as it had correctly focused on the actual injury suffered by the Claimant and not the gravity of the acts of the Respondent. Accordingly, the ET's compensation award would stand, but the ET's judgment would be substituted so as to include the correct interest figure, and also a Simmons v Castle uplift that had not previously been discussed but was agreed by the Respondent.