The Claimant worked for the Respondent, largely in a mobile role. On leaving the Respondent's employment, he raised a number of issues including constructive unfair dismissal, paternity leave discrimination, race discrimination and victimisation, but all of his claims failed. He referred to an occasion when he was told to drive a car in an unsafe condition, while a recovery vehicle had been sent for a white colleague who had a flat tyre. The ET heard evidence and noted in its judgment that, in relation to the incident in which a vehicle driven by a white driver was towed back, "the reason for the vehicle being towed was because it had had all four tyres slashed". The Claimant appealed on the grounds that the change in stance from "a flat tyre" to "four slashed tyres" was a change in the Respondent's case of such significance that it ought to have sought permission to amend its case, and that the ET had acted perversely in failing to identify that the reason why the other driver was given assistance was on grounds of ethnicity.

The EAT held that the ET had established that there was an evidential basis for its finding that the tyres had been slashed, and there was no procedural irregularity in allowing the Respondent to proceed without a formal repleading. Since there was some evidence on which the ET was entitled to make the finding that it did, it had not acted perversely.