The Claimant made a number of applications to the ET for case management orders. Two of the applications were to amend his Particulars of Claim. Despite the first of those applications being unopposed by Leading Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the Employment Judge engaged in a lengthy debate with the Claimant about the amendment and imposed conditions on its grant which had not been argued for or suggested by the Respondent. The second application to amend was determined against the Claimant but on grounds which again, had not been argued by the Respondents and which had not been the subject of discussion at the hearing. A third application (for an order that the Respondent reply to a Request for Further Information) was also rejected on the basis that this was excessive – and again, this was not an argument that had been advanced by the Respondents. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The EJ had wrongly exercised his discretion in relation to the two applications by the Claimant that he had rejected and, taking his conduct as a whole, it was sufficient to amount to apparent bias.