The issue in this appeal concerned the ET's approach to the evidence of the medical report of Dr Parsonage who had been jointly instructed by both parties. The Respondent to the appeal conceded that the ET had not sufficiently explained what consideration it had given to Dr Parsonage's report when concluding that the Claimant was unwilling to work, rather than being unable through disability to work.

As the Respondent had conceded, the only matter to decide was whether the case should be remitted to the same or a different ET. The EAT had confidence that the ET would be prepared to look fully at the matter which it had either not considered or had not explained, and it would be willing to come to a different conclusion, if appropriate to do so, after further consideration.