The Claimant made claims in three separate claim forms, the last of these contending race discrimination. The claimant had indicated he had made claims of discrimination and had entered a tick into the box marked "race" on the ET1 form. The judgment reasons showed that the employment judge considered that the factual matters that had been raised by the Claimant fitted a complaint of discrimination but on the grounds of being a fixed term employee and not in respect of race. The ET struck out the claim saying 'The claims as presented, and as clarified during the preliminary hearing, do not include claims of race discrimination (even though the box was ticked on claim 3).' The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The EJ erred in effectively striking out a claim of indirect race discrimination without allowing a litigant in person sufficient notice that the issue would be raised. However, the decision that the facts did not disclose a viable claim pursuant to section 19 Equality Act 2010 was correct. Despite the procedural irregularity, a correct process would not have led to any different outcome, and on that basis the appeal was dismissed.