The Claimant, who has a disability, was employed by the Respondent. The Claimant brought claims for disability discrimination, and the ET found that the Respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments on one occasion and for another specified period, and it awarded compensation for past loss and injury to feelings. The Respondent appealed on the grounds that the ET was wrong in law and perverse (1) to find that, if the Respondent had made the reasonable adjustment, there was a 30% chance that the Claimant would have worked during the specified period, (2) to award the Claimant damages at the mid-point of the second Vento band, and (3) to calculate the uplift in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Presidential Guidance ("the Guidance").

The EAT held that (1) the ET was entitled to make a broad assessment of the percentage chances of the Claimant going back to work, (2) the ET was not irrational in placing this case in the middle of the Vento band, and its award was not manifestly excessive, and (3) the ET did not act perversely or unlawfully in accepting the Claimant's submission that it should follow paragraph 11 of the Guidance.