The Claimant, who was a barrister at 2 Temple Gardens Chambers, was expelled from chambers in 2019 after issues regarding the non-payment of his monthly chambers bills, one complaint being the requirement to pay contributions on his receipts for direct access work. Over the preceding 3 years, he had made complaints of direct and indirect race discrimination, harassment related to race and victimisation and after his dismissal, he brought his claims to the ET. The ET dismissed all his claims and the Claimant appealed on four main grounds: (a) procedural unfairness which he said vitiated the decision; (b) apparent bias; (c) errors of law/approach and/or inadequate reasons in relation to the findings on direct race discrimination; and (d) errors of law/approach and/or inadequate reasons in relation to victimisation.

The EAT dismissed all grounds of the appeal. The first ground of appeal related partly to the amount of time given to each party for cross-examination, the Claimant claiming that he had been 'guillotined before he had completed his cross examination of' the Respondent. The EAT ruled that there was no sense in which it was unjust to limit the Claimant's cross-examination of the Respondent. Another ground relating to alleged bias in dealing with oral and written submissions was also rejected, the EAT saying that both parties were treated in essentially the same way. On the issue of bias generally, the EAT concluded that it could not be said 'the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased'.