The Claimant claimed principally that she was owed wages in respect of time that she had worked over and above her core hours. The evidence on which the Claimant relied before the tribunal was her own evidence, giving her account of what she said had been agreed and what hours she said she had worked, from week to week and month to month, in accordance with that agreement. The ET concluded that the Claimant had not produced sufficient evidence to show that she actually did work the hours which she was claiming and her claim failed. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET erred by apparently requiring the Claimant’s oral evidence, based on her recollection, to be corroborated by other evidence, such as independent documentary records. There is no such rule of evidence. The ET should have appraised all of the different sources of evidence, as to their reliability and credibility, including the Claimant’s oral testimony, contemporary (though not independent) communications reflecting what she had said when she had raised her grievance during employment, work records relied upon by the Respondent, and the Respondent’s evidence about how pay was calculated and those records compiled. It should then have made findings of fact about what hours the Claimant had or had not worked, based upon its assessment of the overall picture.